OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House—after the adjournment on 31st March for the Easter Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

De Vesci's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Risca Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Wandsworth, Wimbledon and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

NEW WRIT.

For Borough of Sunderland,

In the room of Lieut.-Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD, Baronet, K.C., Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.—[Captain Guest.]

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTS FROM GERMANY (MANUFACTURED GOODS).

Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the value of the imports of manufactured goods from Germany for the past six months; whether any export tax is imposed by the German Government; and, if not, who gets the benefit of the exchange between the German and British currency?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Home): The imports into the United Kingdom during the period specified, of goods consigned from Germany and classed in the trade returns of this country as wholly or partly manufactured were valued at £2,432,202. So
far as I know, the German Government does not levy any export tax. The question of the benefit from the depreciation of the exchange rate of the mark depends on the terms of purchase, for example, whether payment is stipulated for in sterling or in marks.

Mr. TERRELL: Is it not a fact that a very large proportion of this sum is in the form of a profit which is consequent on the exchange, and whether he is taking any step to intercept that profit for the benefit of the Treasury?

Sir R. HORNE: As I have stated in my reply, it depends entirely upon the terms of the contract. Whether in point of fact it arises from the depreciated mark or not, I cannot say. It is impossible, of course, to get the absolute details of the contracts which have been made.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any reason why the consumers of this country should not get the benefit of the exchange in cheaper prices?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it advisable that the foreign Governments should pay something for the privilege of using the markets of this country?

Sir R. HORNE: Those are controversial topics which can be argued at the proper time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH WOOLWICH PUMPING STATION (TENDERS).

Mr. A. SHORT: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the London County Council recently called for tenders for the pipes and castings in connection with the erection of the North Woolwich pumping station; whether tenders were submitted by firms in Nottingham, Dudley, Chesterfield, and Middlesbrough; whether in all cases the tenders were for the same amount, namely, £27,072 10s. ordinary section and £29,152 10s. special section; whether a ring exists among these firms; and, if so, what action, if any, does he propose to take?

Sir R. HORNE: My attention had not been previously drawn to the matters referred to in the question. If the hon. Member will supply me with particulars of the names of the firms he has in mind the
matter will be brought to the notice of the Central Committee which is at present investigating the question of building materials.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

INCREASED DEMURRAGE RATES.

Major ENTWISTLE: 4.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to state the effect of the increased demurrage rates upon the detention of wagons?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): The increased demurrage rates came into operation on the 1st of January last. The number of wagon days lost in December was 365,533, and in February the number of days lost declined to 212,414, a decrease of 153,119 days, or 42 per cent., as compared with December.

PORTABLE TYPEWRITERS (RAILWAY CHARGES).

Sir RICHARD COOPER: 5.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the action of the London Underground Railways Company enforcing a charge of 1s. 2d. on a small portable typewriter weighing under five pounds, and carried by a passenger whose fare may be only 1d.; if he will say under what statute the right of levying this charge is made; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am in communication with the railway companies on the subject. The enactments are numerous, and I can only refer my hon. Friend to the company's private acts. Though legally I do not think it either just or expedient to enforce such charges for the particular class of small light hand typewriting machines, and I am dealing with the matter in that spirit.

ROAD IMPROVEMENT.

Mr. CLOUGH: 6.
asked how much of the money ear-marked for road improvement after the War has been allocated and spent; and how much there is still in hand?

Sir E. GEDDES: Of the total amount of £10,536,000 ear-marked for road improvement after the War, the sums indicated to highway authorities up to the
end of March amounted to £10,106,156, leaving an unallocated balance of £429,844. As work progresses the highway authorities requisition for payments on account against the grants made to them. Up to the end of March payments amounting to £3,434,780 had been made.

Captain TERRELL: Will the balance be spent this year so as to get the roads into a proper conditions at once?

Sir E. GEDDES: The money allocated is being spent as fast as the local authorities can spend it, and there is only a balance of £429,000 not yet allocated.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the whole question of road repairing in view of the state in which the roads have got during the war; and is he aware that hundreds and thousands of pounds have been lost through the breakdown of mechanical transport caused by the bad condition of the roads?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am aware that the roads have got into a very bad state, particularly in certain parts where they draw their stone by sea. The whole question of the roads is continually under review and there is a very small un-allotted balance. The money allotted is being spent as fast as the local authorities can spend it. The general condition of the roads is being considered and will be provided for,. I hope, by the new motor taxation.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where we can get the details of this expenditure?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am not aware that it is published at all, but I shall be glad to supply the hon. Member with details after the allotment has been made.

Mr. BILLING: Are not the military authorities largely responsible for the condition of the roads, and will he call upon the War Office to use some of their superfluous staff to help to bring the roads back to their proper condition?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am not aware that there are any superfluous men at the War Office who could do that work, but the repair of the abnormal damage to the roads has been carried on very fast, and, I believe, satisfactorily.

GOODS AND MINERAL TRAFFIC (THREE-SHIFT SYSTEM).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 7.
asked whether, in view of the continued congestion of traffic in the North-East Coast area, he is now prepared to press the railway companies concerned to establish a three-shift system of working goods and mineral traffic, so as to relieve the present position.

Captain TERRELL: 8.
asked whether, in view of the successful introduction by the steelworkers of the system of three shifts of eight hours each, he will consider the application of this method of working to the railways in those districts where congestion still exists.

Sir E. GEDDES: As I stated in answer to the hon. Member for Pontefract on the 23rd of February, the railway companies generally, as a means of meeting the situation caused by the introduction of a shorter working day, are increasing shifts wherever this is practicable and the traffic warrants it. Train working is at present continuous on important main and branch lines, and this is extended to all lines on which it is proved to be necessary.

Captain TERRELL: Could the right hon. Gentleman not employ some of the 250,000 unemployed ex-Service men?

Sir E. GEDDES: Additional men are being put on to the railways as fast as possible.

RAILWAY WAGONS (SHORTAGE).

Mr. A. SHORT: 9.
asked what is the estimated shortage of railway wagons; what have been the total orders placed for new wagons since 23rd December, 1919; and the total number completed?

Sir E. GEDDES: I would refer the hon. Member to my speech on the 24th ultimo on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, in which I dealt with the wagon shortage and with the total orders placed for new wagons. The total number of new wagons completed and put into traffic during January and February was 3,352 (of which 475 were obtained from outside firms).

Mr. TERRELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to encourage the repairing of wagons which were out of repair so as to make up the shortage?

Sir E. GEDDES: That received our first attention ahead of any question of new buildings, and the arrears of repairs overtaken has been very satisfactory indeed. If the hon. Member will look at the statement published in the White Paper, he will see a confirmation of my statement.

LONDON TRAFFIC.

Mr. GILBERT: 10.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department propose to adopt the Report of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic, which recommends the setting up of a traffic authority for Greater London; and if the Government intend to bring in legislation during this Session to establish such an authority?

Sir E. GEDDES: The recommendations of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic have not yet been considered by the Cabinet, and I therefore regret that I cannot definitely reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

PASSPORT REGULATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the present Regulations governing the issue of passports to the various parts of the former Russian Empire?

Lieut. - Colonel Sir ROBERT A. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): Except for Soviet Russia, for which country the hon. and gallant Member is aware passports are not at present granted, the Regulations governing the issue of passports are as indicated in the reply of the 24th February given to the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that I am aware, will he tell me if there has been any change of policy since the time the question was last answered in this House?

Sir R. SANDERS: I must ask for notice of that question.

POLAND (PEACE NEGOTIATIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made with the negotiations for peace between the Government of Poland
and the Soviet Government of Russia; and whether His Majesty's Government is represented at these negotiations?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): According to the latest information which has reached me, the place and date of the proposed negotiations have not been finally agreed upon by the Polish and Soviet Governments. The answer to the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Government be represented when the negotiations take place?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Government bringing any pressure to bear on the Polish Government to have the negotiations at some place suitable for the Soviet Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It has been stated on many occasions in answer to questions that the making of peace between neighbouring countries is a question to be decided between themselves.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that pressure may be put upon Poland by some of the Allies not to make peace, and will Great Britain take steps to counterbalance any such action?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is right to assume there will be any such pressure. At any rate, the Government are not prepared to accept the responsibility of giving advice on such a matter.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Are not the negotiations between these countries subject to the supervision of the League of Nations?

REFUGEES (ASSISTANCE).

Sir W. DAVISON: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government have received an urgent appeal from Count G. Bobrinski on behalf of some of the last survivors of middle-class civilisation in Russia, who, have been brought to bay in the ports of the Crimea and the Kuban, and are in danger of being overwhelmed, and what
steps have been taken by the British Government, by the provision of ships or otherwise, to rescue these unfortunate people, who have, throughout the War, remained faithful to the Allies, from the terrible fate which will otherwise overtake them.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and, to the second, that steps are being taken to afford assistance, but that I am not in a position to give any particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISUSED ARMY LORRIES.

Mr. CHARLES PALMER: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware of the fact that many discharged soldiers are anxious to secure disused Army lorries for business purposes, but are unable to pay down the full price; and, seeing that it is computed that there are 80,000 such lorries rotting in the country, will he devise some hire-purchase scheme by which discharged soldiers can be given facilities for acquiring the lorries they need?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): As my hon. Friend has no doubt observed from the official announcement which appeared in the public Press, the Disposal Board has now sold the whole of the surplus stock of mechanical transport vehicles which are the property of the Disposal Board. The preamble to the latter part of the question has no warrant in fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL, BRADFORD.

Mr. MYERS: 15.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the agreement made between the Bradford Corporation and the Bradford Board of Guardians in respect of the utilising of St. Luke's Hospital as a municipal general hospital; whether he is aware that this arrangement will enable the Bradford Corporation to treat the sick, irrespective of their economic circumstances, and avoid the stigma attached to Poor Law treatment; whether the Ministry of Health is prepared to encourage and assist the project; and, if so, will he inquire into the circumstances prevailing
in his Department which are stated to be causing delay in putting the scheme into operation?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): The scheme to which the hon. Member refers was approved by me last month.

Mr. LYLE: Will the consent of the Ministry of Health be extended to other local authorities putting forward similar proposals, and does this step agree with the policy enunciated in February, 1919, in this House and elsewhere? Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to make a statement on the policy of the Department in respect to voluntary hospitals?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING MATERIALS (COST).

Mr. FINNEY: 16.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the difficulties municipal authorities are encountering in carrying out housing schemes owing to the high cost of construction, as estimated by the officers of the Ministry of Health; whether applications have been made to the Ministry of Health to take the necessary steps to enable the municipal authorities to obtain the materials required for the erection of houses, especially bricks, cement, timber, paint, &c., at such reasonable prices as will enable them to erect houses at a cost which will justify the letting thereof at rents which the tenants can afford to pay and also respectfully urging His Majesty's Government to immediately institute an inquiry into the origin of these abnormal prices, with a view to securing their abatement where possible; and whether he can indicate the intentions of the Government respecting the same.

Dr. ADDISON: I am aware that the housing problem is being complicated by the high prices of materials, and I have received a number of resolutions from local authorities on this subject. The whole question of the cost of building materials is still being investigated by sub-committees appointed under the Profiteering Act.

Mr. BILLING: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive the report of the sub-Committee. And does
he propose to appoint a general Committee to deal with wholesalers irrespective of the local dealers?

Dr. ADDISON: I think there is a general Committee which deals with large wholesalers. I will inquire as to when the report of the Committee may be expected.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

TRAINING GRANTS.

Mr. MYERS: 17.
asked the Pensions Minister concerning the case of Mr. G. H. Pickles, of 85, Osborne Street, Bradford, who joined the Army in July 1917, after he had served 15 months of his apprenticeship as a pharmaceutical chemist and was demobilised in November 1919, and who still requires nine months' working experience, after taking into consideration an allowance of 12 months' deduction of his apprenticeship period for his Army service, before he is entitled to take advantage of the award of the grants Committee of the Ministry of Labour appoinment department in respect to training at a college, if he is aware that the only offer Mr. Pickles can get to allow him to gain the required working experience for nine months is that of a local chemist and the wage offered to him is only 10s. per week, on which he cannot exist; that the Ministry of Labour appointments department has refused to make a training grant to supplement this small wage; that Mr. Pickles is consequently confronted with the alternative of abandoning the profession for which he had made expensive preparation prior to joining the Army and beginning life afresh in some unskilled occupation; and whether, in these circumstances, he will take action in the matter with the object of assisting Mr. Pickles.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I am aware that the grant awarded to Mr. G. H. Pickles covers only the period of his college training. The award conformed exactly with the recommendation of an Interviewing Board, consisting of business men serving in a voluntary capacity, and presided over by a member of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. I am not aware that the wage offered to Mr. Pickles during the completion of his apprenticeship is only 10s. per week, but I am issuing instructions
that he should be invited to appear again before the Interviewing Board to state the circumstances of his case.

Mr. MYERS: 18.
asked the Pensions Minister respecting Mr. W. A. Wardle, of 22, Horton Lane, Bradford, who recently applied for a grant from the Civil Liabilities Committee and was refused, if he is aware that Mr. Wardle purchased machinery and tools for boot repairing after he had been exempted from service on account of medical unfitness in July, 1916, was called up later, and that on his demobilisation in November, 1919, his machinery and tools had suffered dilapidation by rust owing to lack of use and attention in the locked-up shop, which caused him a loss of £11 that he has now to make good himself, notwithstanding the fact that his connection with customers has been broken by his absence on military service and cannot be got together again except gradually over an extended period of time; and whether, in the circumstances, he will have further inquiries made into this case with a view to making a grant sufficient at least to cover the loss due to deterioration of machinery and tools during Mr. Wardle's absence on military service?

Sir M. BARLOW: Mr. Wardle received, while on Service a grant to enable him to retain his business premises with the necessary machinery and tools. Having regard to the gratuity payable to Mr. Wardle on discharge there are, on the facts as disclosed to the Department, no grounds for giving further assistance.

TRAINING GRANTS.

Captain LOSEBY: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that inconvenience is still being caused to ex-soldiers by the fact that training grants are frequently two months and more in arrears; and if he will investigate the causes of this apparently unnecessary hardship?

Sir M. BARLOW: Certain cases of unavoidable delay have occurred. I am not aware that payment of grants is frequently two months or more in arrears. The system of payment is that trainees receive their first instalment one month after they have commenced training, and in cases of hardship one-half the first month's instalment is paid in advance.
Steps have recently been taken to ensure greater expedition in dealing with payments, and if the hon. and gallant Member will supply further particulars of the cases to which he refers, I will make investigations.

Captain LOSEBY: In view of certain very satisfactory reconstruction changes, may we now hope for a very vigorous attack being made upon the system?

Sir M. BARLOW: I will mention that to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 19.
asked the Pensions Minister whether a number of conscientious objectors who refused military service have been declared to be eligible for war pensions, and, if so, by what authority?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Assuming that by "military service" my hon. Friend means combatant service, the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A conscientious objector who is taken into the Army and subjected to military discipline is a soldier under the Army Act, and as such is within the definition of soldier in the Pensions Warrant. Consequently he is entitled to pension if, while in the Army and without negligence or misconduct on his part, he sustains disablement in the performance of the military duties, whether combatant or non-combatant, assigned to him by his superior officers.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling in the country against war pensions being awarded to men who declined to fight for their country, especially having regard to the fact that these pensions are greatly in excess of those which are being paid to men who have fought for their country in the South African and other wars?

Major TRYON: All that has happened recently has been that a number of conscientious objectors, who have been discharged from the Army, were by order of the Minister of Pensions medically examined in order to protect the taxpayer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not the fact that many of these men who served abroad incurred much greater risks than so-called soldiers who never went abroad?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

BACON (GOVERNMENT TRADING).

Mr. CLOUGH: 21.
asked the Food Controller if, in view of the fact that bacon is now decontrolled, he will state the results of Government trading in this article?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): It is not the present intention of the Government to decontrol imported bacon. Home grown pigs and pig products were decontrolled as from 31st March, but at no time has there been any Government trading in home-produced bacon.

IMPORTED FOODS (DESTRUCTION).

Mr. CLOUGH: 22.
asked the Minister of Food how much perishable food imported from abroad has been destroyed in the last three months owing to its having become unfit for human consumption; and if he will state the ports at which this destruction has occurred?

Mr. PARKER: No precise information can be given as to the quantity of foodstuffs condemned at the ports as unfit for human consumption during the last three months, but the Food Controller has no reason to suppose that it is in excess of the normal.

Captain TERRELL: What is "normal"?

Mr. PARKER: I am afraid the hon. Member must put that question down on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Commander BELLAIRS: 23.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can state the increase in the number of telephones, respectively, in the United States of America and in the United Kingdom for 1919?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The increase during 1919 in the number of telephones in the United States of
America, including the Bell system and independent companies not connected with the Bell system, was 664,422, or 5.5 per cent., and in the United Kingdom (Post Office system), 59,550, or 7.1 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT.

Captain COOTE: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Representation of the People Act so as to apply the principle of the alternative vote to single-member constituencies?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and Western on the 31st March.

Sir J. D. REES: After the deliberate killing by the House of this particular eccentricity, can the matter be reconsidered during the life of the present Parliament.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt it can.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing short of this can possibly save the Liberal party?

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTI-DUMPING BILL.

Mr. TERRELL: 26.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce the promised Anti-Dumping Bill.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Mr. TERRELL: If I repeat this question this day week will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give an answer?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope the hon. Gentleman will give me a little longer time. The Government have a great deal to do, and I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer before Whitsuntide.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.

Mr. PALMER: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet have vetoed the scheme for the merging of the Ministry
of Munitions into a permanent Ministry of Supply; on what grounds this decision has been arrived at; and can it be taken as evidence of the determination of the Government ruthlessly to reduce unnecessary public Departments and to economise in public expenditure?

Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government, after very careful consideration, have decided that the Ministry of Munitions should not continue beyond the period now provided for. The latter part of the question expresses the aim of the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEVOLUTION (SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE).

Captain TERRELL: 29.
asked the Prime Minister when the Speaker's Conference on Devolution is expected to deliver its Report?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I am not in a position to give the exact date.

Captain TERRELL: In view of the fact that there is a movement on foot to secure Home Rule for Scotland, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will expedite the decision?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It does not depend upon me. I am quite sure the Conference is proceeding as rapidly as it can. If there be a movement on foot to give Home Rule to Scotland, it has been on foot as long as I can remember.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

TURKEY.

Captain TERRELL: 30.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now make any statement as to the position of the peace negotiations with Turkey, and also as to the present state of Moslem opinion in British India arising out of it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Pending the negotiations which are still proceeding and which are to be continued at San Remo, no statement can usefully be made.

Sir J. D. REES: May those hon. Members who have personal experience of India and Indian Mahomedans, and who receive many representations from them,
but are unable to make themselves heard in this House, communicate them to my right hon. Friend?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall be quite ready to receive them. I hope they will not be too voluminous.

Sir J. D. REES: I will carefully abstract them.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-GERMAN AND TURKISH,lb/> WARSHIPS.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 31.
asked the Prime Minister where the ex-German and Turkish warships now are and who are responsible for them pending a final decision as to their fate?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Turkish warships interned at the Golden Horn are under Allied supervision. The first convoy of ex-German ships is at the Firth of Forth; the remainder of those to be surrendered are in German ports. Pending their being taken over by the countries to which they are allotted, Great Britain is responsible for German ships in British ports, and the German Government is responsible for those in German ports.

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that one or two ex-German cruisers have already been sent to French ports, and does that represent their final destination?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that. Perhaps my noble Friend will give notice, or will communicate with me.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask what steps, if any, have been taken to prevent a recurrence of what happened at Scapa Flow, in the case of the ships now under British control?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would rather my hon. Friend put that question to the Admiralty. I am sure proper steps are being taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-KAISER (TRIAL).

Viscount CURZON: 32.
asked the Prime Minister what are the present intentions of the Allies with regard to the trial of the ex-Kaiser and the War criminals?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There is nothing at present to add to what has already-been stated upon this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC TRUSTEE OFFICE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GRIFFITHS: 34.
asked the Attorney-General whether there is any intention to replace or discharge existing necessary employés in the Public Trustee Office with the object of appointing younger men at a reduced salary; and, if so, will care be taken to retain those of approved ability, irrespective of age, while carrying out their duties in an efficient manner?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I understand that there-is no intention to replace or discharge existing employés in the Public Trustee Office with the object of appointing younger men at reduced salaries. In the Public Trustee Office, as in other offices, some appointments were made during the War on a temporary footing. The claims and qualifications of any person so appointed will be considered for permanent appointment in common with those of discharged soldiers and persons from the Treasury Pool.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESS TELEGRAMS (INCREASED CHARGES).

Commander BELLAIRS: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take steps to make the charges on Press telegrams balance the loss of over £200,000 per annum now incurred?

Mr. PEASE: I have been asked to answer this question. Increased charges on Press telegrams came into force as recently as the 1st January last, and it is not proposed to increase them further at present.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the Estimate I have given correct: that over £200,000 a year is lost on these telegrams, and is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to subsidise millionaire proprietors of newspapers?

Mr. PEASE: My hon. and gallant Friend should address that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN TOWNS (FRENCH OCCUPATION).

STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Before the right hon. Gentleman is asked what Bills he proposes to take to-day, may I inquire whether he intends to make a statement as to the position of affairs between His Majesty's Government and the French Government?

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, before I ask him a question about the business to-day, whether he will give the House any information in regard to the alleged differences which are stated to have arisen between the British and French Governments in regard to the occupation by French troops of German territory?

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I have an answer to a question of which I have given him private notice—whether he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the Anglo-French crisis, in view of the grave danger to the Entente caused by the answer of the British Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: In addition to the question to which my hon. and gallant Friend has just referred, I have received private notice of questions on the same subject from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. Hall) and from the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper).
As the House is aware, a difference, which His Majesty's Government greatly deplore, had arisen between the British and French Governments, but the exchange of Notes which has taken place between London and Paris justifies the belief that both Governments recognise more than ever the necessity of maintaining intimate and cordial agreement for the settlement of the grave questions confronting them in Germany and elsewhere. The approaching Conference of the heads of the Allied Governments will, no doubt, serve to confirm and consolidate a complete understanding between the Governments. In these circumstances, I venture to suggest that it would be very undesirable to have any discussion of the subject in this House either in Debate or by way of question and answer.
It is hardly necessary to add that there is no truth whatever in the statement made in a certain section of the Press that there has been any difference of opinion in the Cabinet, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose name has been specially mentioned in this connection, has requested me to take this opportunity of explicitly denying it on his behalf.

Lieut. Colonel GUINNESS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government took any steps to prevent the development of the crisis, by addressing any protest to the German Government against their continued violation of the Peace Treaty?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is just doing what I hoped the House would not do. We cannot discuss any partial aspect of this question without discussing the whole.

Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether Lord Derby is now attending the Conference of Ambassadors in Paris?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would rather that question were postponed for a couple of days. That particular point has not been discussed.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Do the Government intend to publish the Notes that have been exchanged?

Mr. BONAR LAW: On that also I cannot give an answer. It must, of course, depend not only upon what the British Government think right, but upon what is thought by other Allies.

Colonel LOWTHER: Is it a fact that the German Army at present, either under the guise of the Reichswehr or of militia or of Red police, now exceeds 2,000,000 men?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not believe there is a shadow of foundation for any such statement.

Lord R. CECIL: Was it by the authority of the Government that a communique was published in the English Press on this subject on Friday or Saturday?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know to what communique my Noble Friend refers.

Mr. BILLING: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it right that the Press should be allowed to carry on controversy on this matter and this House of Commons should not have an opportunity of expressing its wishes?

Mr. PALMER: Is it not a fact that the Press were specially invited to a meeting, to learn the views of the Government, and is it not lacking in courtesy to the House not to make a similar statement to it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite appreciate the feeling which has been shown in regard to this matter. There is a difference between statements appearing in the Press, and discussions which inevitably, in this case, must take the form of explaining the action of the British Government, and appearing to criticise the action of the French Government. I may point out also that, so far as the British Government is concerned, no steps whatever were taken to give any information to the Press until the Press had published abundant statements on the other side.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the withdrawal of the Reichswehr or the Baltic troops from the Essen district?

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that no further communications will be given to the Press without this House having an opportunity of discussion?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) I can give no information, because I have none. The information which reaches us is to the effect that the Reichswehr will be withdrawn very shortly, but I have no information that they are being withdrawn up to now.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we taking any steps to insist on the Germans withdrawing these troops from the neutral zone?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is doing what I deprecated. It is quite obvious that you cannot discuss isolated parts of this subject without discussing the whole. If you were dealing only with the British people I should like nothing better than to have a full discussion; but it is because it is a matter which affects not only us but our Allies that it is desirable to avoid discussion if we can.

Sir F. HALL: Has my right hon. Friend any objection to questions being put on the Paper, or is the House to understand that the Government at this juncture will prefer that no questions on this subject should be put on the Paper?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The House can understand that the Government do not presume for a moment to suggest that their wishes as to the avoidance of discussion are to have effect if there be a general desire for a discussion, but I can only say that in our view at present we think it would be undesirable. In the same way as regards questions: if they are put on the Paper and if I think an answer to them would do harm, I shall ask hon. Members to allow me not to answer them. Beyond that I cannot go. I may add that it is quite possible that developments may make discussion advisable. I hope not, but if they do, the Government will be quite ready.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Will my right hon. Friend give any information which is to be given in the first instance to the House, and not to the Press?

Mr. PALMER: In view of the garbled and partial accounts of the Notes exchanged, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, in the public interest, of speedily publishing the full text of those Notes?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That really is the same question in another form. There is no doubt whatever that in cases of this kind the best plan is to have a complete statement in the House, but the House must realise that there are two great dangers. The first is that any statement in this House, and still more any statement by a member of His Majesty's Government, which seems to justify our action might have the appearance of criticising the action of our Allies. On the other hand, any statement of that kind might have the still more deplorable effect of conveying to the German Government the idea that there was not complete agreement among the Allies.

Lord R. CECIL: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether he cannot clear up for the benefit of the House and the country the suspicion that information or a communique, call it what you like, was made to the Press on Friday and Saturday
purporting to give the substance of the Note which was sent to the French Government, and if on inquiry he finds that has been done, will he explain how it came to be done and why it is impossible to make a similar communication to the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer I have given is an answer to the question of my Noble Friend. There has been no statement issued by the Government in any shape or form giving particulars as to the Note. But it is a fact that for two or three days the Press was flooded with accounts from one side, and the Government thought it necessary to give an indication as to their attitude. That cannot be avoided unless we are to allow only one side to appear. It is deplorable and certainly it would not have been done if it could have been avoided.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Did or did not Mr. Philip Kerr interview the provincial Press?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice of that question.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not just as objectionable for a statement to be put into the provincial Press as to make that statement in the House, and is it not just as dangerous from the point of view of imperilling our relations with France?

Captain LOSEBY: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the majority of hon. Members have complete confidence in His Majesty's Government in this matter, and have no desire whatever to embarrass them?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said enough to show that in my view and in that of the Government it is very undesirable that there should be such communications, but at the time the House of Commons was hot sitting, and for at least two days—I think three—no statement of the British case at ail had been made. It is obvious that we could not allow one side only to be given without making any effort to present the other side.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MOUNTJOY PRISON.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General for
Ireland whether he could state the present position of several prisoners in Mountjoy goal; whether it is true that many of them have gone on hunger strike and are in danger of death; how many of these prisoners are under sentence, and how many are simply detained on suspicion?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I have only just received notice of the question and it is impossible for me in the time at my disposal to ascertain the information for all my hon. Friend asks. I should be obliged if he would repeat the question to-morrow.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I admit that the notice is short: but I gave in the question early in the day, and it did not reach my right hon. Friend. He will see the urgency of the matter in face of the reports in the newspapers that many of these unfortunate men are at the present time in a deadly peril of death.

HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Have some decency.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I will take no notice of the interruptions. I do not think they add to the dignity of the House. I will only ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the fact that many of these men are, according to the reports in the newspapers, in such a dangerous state of health that their relatives have been called upon to visit them, whether he will get an answer as early as possible. Perhaps he will be able to get the answer later in the evening.

Mr. HENRY: I will do my best.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPRISONMENT OF MEMBERS.

Mr. SPEAKER: informed the House that he had received the following letters relating to the imprisonment of Members:—

Belfast,

31st March, 1920.

The Right Hon. The Speaker,

House of Commons,

London, S.W.1.

Sir,

I have the honour to report that, on the 30th day of March, 1920, Mr. P. J. Ward, M.P. for Donegal South, was arrested
under a direction issued by me as Competent Military Authority, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and was committed to His Majesty's Prison at Londonderry.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

G. CAMPBELL,

Brigadier-General,

Commanding Ulster Brigade,

Competent Military Authority.

Belfast,

30th March, 1920.

The Right Hon. The Speaker,

House of Commons,

London, S.W.1.

Sir,

I have the honour to report that, on the 30th day of March, 1920, Mr. Joseph Sweeney, M.P. for Donegal West, was arrested under a direction issued by me as Competent Military Authority, under the Defence of the Realm Regulation, and was committed to His Majesty's Prison at Londonderry.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

G. CAMPBELL,

Brigadier-General,

Commanding Ulster Brigade,

Competent Military Authority.

Lower Castle Yard,

Dublin,

31st March, 1920.

Headquarters,

Dublin District,

No. 483/2/19A.

The Right Hon. The Speaker,

House of Commons,

London, S.W.1.

Sir,

I have the honour to report that, on the 27th day of March, 1920, Mr. P. Shanahan, M.P. for Dublin Harbour Division, was arrested under a direction issued by me as Competent Military Authority, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and was committed to His Majesty's Prison, Mountjoy.

I have the honour to be.

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

G. F. BOYD,

Major-General,

Competent Military Authority.

Lower Castle Yard,

Dublin,

31st March, 1920.

Headquarters,

Dublin District,

No. 483/2/19A.

The Right Hon. The Speaker,

House of Commons,

London, S.W.1.

Sir,

I have the honour to report that, on 27th day of March, 1920, Mr. L. Ginnell, M.P. for West Meath, was arrested under a direction issued by me as Competent Military
Authority, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and was committed to His Majesty's Prison, Mountjoy.

He was released from custody on the 30th March, 1920.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

G. F. BOYD,

Major-General,

Competent Military Authority.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask what Orders on the Papers to-day it is proposed to endeavour to take, and what changes, if any, are contemplated in the business during the rest of the week?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We propose to endeavour to take the first eight Orders on the Paper except No. 4. Should there not be time to complete the business by 10 o'clock we shall report progress in order to take the Second Reading of the Army Annual Bill.
To-morrow we shall have to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, and this will entail the postponement of the Munitions Vote till Thursday and the Transport Vote till next week, unless it also can be taken on Thursday.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How many days will be given to the discussion of the Treaty of Peace with Austria and Bulgaria?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I should have preferred had the hon. and gallant Gentleman put the question in hours instead of days. I think one day will be sufficient.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that copies of the Report of the Cippenham Inquiry, which will arise on the Ministry of Munitions Vote, are available? There were no copies this morning.

Mr. PALMER: In view of the fact that there are very large and important changes in the Army Annual Bill this year as the result of the Departmental Committee on Courts-Martial, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of not carrying on the Bill late to-night?

Mr. SPEAKER: That could not be taken on the Second Reading. It will come up in Committee.

Mr. MOUNT: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We are not taking it to-day on account of a promise, I think. We will take it as soon as possible.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRADE [CREDITS AND INSURANCE].

Considered in Committee.

[Progress, 23rd March, 1920.]

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question again proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise the granting of credits and the undertaking of insurances for the purpose of re-establishing overseas trade and the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any sums required for granting credits for such purpose up to an amount not exceeding at any one time twenty-six million pounds and of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in connection with the granting of such credits and the undertaking of insurances so far as those expenses are not defrayed out of sums received by the Board by way of commission in respect of credits or by way of premiums in respect of insurances."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Sir D. MACLEAN rose—

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. I want to move an Amendment before the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) moves the Amendment which stands in his name. He desires to leave out the words "twenty-six million" in order to insert another figure. I desire to leave out some words before we get to the words "twenty-six million". I want to leave out the words "at any one time" in order to insert the words "in all". As the Resolution stands it may sanction at various times an overdraft of £26,000,000, or whatever sum may be put in afterwards. My object is to put in words which will ensure that, whatever sum this House agrees upon, that sum cannot be exceeded. That would not in any way interfere with the hon. Member's Amendment. In view of the present financial state of the country we ought to be very careful before we give even my hon. Friend (Mr. Bridgman)—in whom I have very great confidence—power to spend millions of money on these various experiments.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman rose on a point of Order.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understood that the Deputy-Chairman had accepted my Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is true that the right hon. Gentleman rose to a point of Order and to explain his point, and as no other hon. or right hon. Member got up to move an Amendment in front of the right hon. Gentleman's-Amendment, he has a right to go on I take it there are no hon. Members who wish to make an Amendment in front of the right hon. Baronet's Amendment.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am quite willing to waive the fact that you called upon me first in favour of my right hon. Friend.

Sir F. BANBURY: I will give way to my right hon. Friend if he wishes to move an Amendment. If not, I beg to move to leave out the words "at any one time" and to insert instead thereof the words "in all".

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. It is worthy of notice that this Committee stage, which has already produced two interesting Amendments, one from the right hon. Baronet and one from the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), was attempted to be smuggled through at the end of our last sitting at a late hour, apparently as a small matter in which the House would not be interested. If I read the Amendment correctly, the £26,000,000 could be granted six times or more in a year. There seems to be no limit to the sum of money, except that no one firm, or no one undertaking, or no one export trade, must have more than £26,000,000 at the particular time. If that is the case, it is a very large sum to put at the disposal of the Government. The Committee ought to support the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: As one who remembers the thousands of millions that have been voted by the House of Commons during the last five or six years for destructive purposes, for destroying the trade not only of our own country but that of other countries as well, I consider it an anomaly that therepresentative of the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who is more interested in the revival of our oversea trade than any other community in
the world, should be pressing a limitation of this proposal for the rehabilitation of our oversea trade. Surely the right hon. Baronet, if he were speaking on behalf of the City of London—

Sir F. BANBURY: I am speaking on behalf of economy which is absolutely necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: As far as the hon. Baronet's constituents are concerned, it is certain that they will look askance at his opposition to the principle of this Motion. No one in the City of London, I am certain, is in favour of reducing the sum from £26,000,000 to the miserable sum of £300,000 a year. There is not, I imagine, a labour representative who will support the principle involved in the right hon. Baronet's Motion. Those who want to see the oversea trade of the country rehabilitated, and who want to see our industrial position restored to what it was before the war, will be in favour of in creasing the amount. If the right hon. Baronet could show that the sum now asked for is going to be spent in a way that will not secure the desired result everyone would agree with him, but, having seen the terrible condition of our trade all around the world, owing to our inability to carry on our trade during the last five years, I would not in any circumstances give a vote for limiting within reason the sum to be devoted to this particular purpose.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) has indicated—a result which comes from the flinging about of thousands of millions of pounds during the War—how difficult it is to bring ourselves back to the fact that we have arrived at a time when we must consider these things not from the point of view of appeals to national sentiment, but from the point of view of the business man. It is as a business man that I understand my right hon. Friend has moved this very proper Amendment. For that reason as a business man I propose to support him. On the general proposal it is quite impossible for export trade, with the wholly disorganised commercial entities now in existence in many parts of Europe, to be restored to normal business conditions. Therefore, if this is to be done, we must take some abnormal steps, and I think it good business to do so. I have not any fundamental objection to the proposal of
the Government, but I want to approach it from the other point of view, as to whether it goes too far. I think that it does.
As far as I can gather from a hasty perusal of the Report of the Debate which took place on the 24th of March, the proposal was made in the first instance on the 8th of September, and more than six months afterwards, on the 24th of March, there had only be advanced under the authority granted by the Supplementary Estimate a sum of £13,334. There was a Supplementary Estimate in round figures for a sum of £300,000. Now the Government come before us on these figures and as their original proposal stands, subject to the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, they are asking us, on a state of facts which has not altered in any material degree since the 24th of March, to give them authority at any one time to advance up to £26,000,000. I am not prepared to do that. I am prepared to support a proposal to give a reasonable and moderate sum, or a proposal which on the broad outlook from the business point of view appears to be sound, but the sum of £26,000,000 is far too much. Let the Government take an amount which might reasonably be expected to carry them over the year, on any reasonable expectation founded on the experience which they have already had during the last six months, of what is likely to be required, and then come back later on with their further experience and ask for any further money that may be necessary to carry on. I understand that that is the object of my right hon. Friend, and it ought to be the object of everyone who considers these things from the business point of view, with the larger view which we must take in these matters. I hope that, if my right hon. Friend's Amendment is not accepted, another Amendment will be moved to modify materially the sum which is now being asked for.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) quite understood my Amendment. It is simply this—I am not at all sure that it is not also the intention of the Government—to make it quite clear that in no circumstances can the Government make advances of more than £26,000,000, unless they come first to the Committee and
ask for more. With reference to the £26,000,000, I agree with my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) that it is a great deal more than seems necessary. All I desire to do is to preserve to this House the right of saying how much money is to be spent, and not to give the Government a free hand. The latter course might have been right during the War, when we were fighting for our lives and did not want to be killed because of lack of sufficient ammunition or guns. If ever we are to get back our commercial supremacy we must get it back by our own unaided efforts and not by the help of subsidies taken out of people's pockets. I have never been in favour of subsidies; they are the worst form of Protection. I do not think the hon. Member wants more than £26,000,000, but his words are not clear. My words are clear. I am sure the representative of the Government will agree that it is far better, in a Resolution of this sort, to have everything so clear that it is capable of being understood even by foolish people like myself.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to ask, on a point of Order, whether on this Amendment one can deal with the whole Question raised by this Resolution or whether it will be necessary to wait until my Amendment is moved. I put down my Amendment solely for the purpose of raising the whole Question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can discuss the whole question on this Amendment. In so far as he refers to the leaving out of the words "any one time" and the inserting of the words "in all," or refers to what "in all" means, or what "any one time" means, he would be in order.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE: (Mr. Bridge-man): The intention of the Government is exactly that of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). The intention is that "there should never be at any moment, outstanding, more than the £26,000,000. The words that are put in the Resolution are, I admit, somewhat ambiguous. They were put in in order that if a part of this money was repaid it could be re-issued again to the total amount of £26,000,000, and used over and over again until the end of the six years, which terminates the arrangement. I do not think it would
quite do to put in the words "in all," for that would probably prevent the money being re-issued. If the hon. Baronet would leave out the word "one" I think it would meet his view.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: Leave out the word "one" ["at any one time"].—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, to leave out the words "twenty-six million" and to insert instead thereof the words "two hundred and ninety-nine thousand".
I move this Amendment in order to raise a more general Debate. I object very much to the way in which this proposal is being made. A White Paper was issued the other day purporting to explain exactly what this was intended to do. I do not know whether hon. Members have-seen it. It covers only about half a sheet of paper, and is very much on the same lines as a White Paper, issued recently, purporting to give information about the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which practically copied, word for word in facsimile, the memorandum at the head of the Bill itself. There is absolutely no information in this White Paper. It simply gives the total sum, it talks a little about insurance-against risks, but it does not tell us for whom this money is wanted or what articles it is supposed to cover. After reading the White Paper one would be no wiser than at the beginning. Apart from that, no information has been given in any Government speeches. On two occasions before Easter this resolution was brought in very late at night. On the first occasion a representative of the Treasury was present, but he gave only about a quarter of a column to this very important Resolution. In fact, he gave so little information that the House insisted upon the postponement of the Resolution. On the second occasion, three days later, my hon. Friend who represents the Board of Trade made rather a longer speech than that of the representative of the Treasury, but practically he gave us no information whatever. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the short speech he made told us that in all probability this expenditure of money would lead to a charge upon the State. I
hope hon. Members do not think that we are merely advancing money which will be repaid in full at some future date. It is quite clear from what the Financial Secretary said on the first occasion that that probably will not be so. These are his words:
It is only fair to remember that, owing to unforeseen circumstances through the prolongation of disturbed conditions in these countries, it may be possible that there will be an ultimate charge on the Exchequer. That is a subject that may be argued and discussed when the Bill is before the House.
The representative of the Board of Trade also made it quite clear that there would be a considerable period of time before even the good debts were paid, because he said:
This scheme was devised for lending money to sellers in those countries to enable them to wait for three years before they got payment from the countries to which they were exporters.
Therefore it is quite clear that not only will there very likely be an ultimate loss, but that for many years at least we shall not see the money repaid by the people to whom it is advanced.
We have not been told by the Government who these traders are to be. We have not the slightest idea as to the type of person to whom this money is to be advanced, whether they are to be substantial men or people who have been failures at home and want to dispose of goods which they have failed to sell in this country owing to lack of business ability.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did mention that all these transactions were to be done through a bank.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: After all, the Government really must take responsibility in these cases. We are being asked to spend public money. It is the Treasury which is responsible and not some bank.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Gentleman was trying to make out that there was no safeguard against lending this money to quite irresponsible people, who wanted to get rid of goods they could not sell anywhere else. That could never be the case, because no advance can be made to them without getting the bank first of all to recommend it.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When a bank is lending other people's money, it
probably will not be quite so careful as it would be in lending its own money. We do not in the least know what they are going to export. We have been told about one or two items. I think the Government mentioned that they were going to export locomotives. I should have thought that it would have been much more useful to have made use of the locomotives in this country than to export them at the present time. We were told the other day by the hon. Member who represents the Board of Trade, that £299,000 had already been sanctioned by the Government. His words were these:
Sanction has so far been given for advances of £299,000 odd, of which the amount actually taken is £13,000; and the amount which has lapsed and in respect of which there is no longer any liability is £168,000 odd. In addition to this, provisional sanction has been given for over £1,250,000, and it is not yet known if the applicants can secure the necessary guarantees.
What sanction has the Government for giving leave to advance this money? I asked that the other day, and the hon. Gentleman said that I must look at the Estimates. I looked at the original Estimates and there was nothing there. I then looked at the Supplementary Estimates, and on page 80 I found among the unclassified services a sum of only £100,000. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government ought not to have gone beyond £100,000 in sanctioning advances. After all, surely the Government ought to-get the leave of this House before sanctioning advances to any taxpayers, whoever they may be. The Government, however, has already given leave, and I suppose there is nothing more to be done. They have already promised, and they will advance this money, and to the extent of that sum, therefore, we are more or less in their hands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, not so long ago, said that he was watching the way in which the Departments were spending public money He said:
I cannot help thinking, after listening to the speeches of hon. Members, that if they saw the work in progress they would be both astonished and pleased to see how much knowledge and zeal is applied to the consideration of these matters, and how much care is given to them. They would then, I believe, have a more comfortable feeling about financial control.
I have not at all a comfortable feeling about financial control at the present time. I believe that there is very little
financial control over the various Departments by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not believe that you can ever have control unless you have in every Department a Treasury official who cannot be dismissed except with the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. I should very much like to ask my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, whether any more money has been spent than that which he mentioned in answer to a question the other day. How much money has been actually spent? If he can tell us, we shall be able to see the extra money to which this House apparently has given no sanction. This Amendment will give my hon. Friend an opportunity of telling us really rather more about this question than he told us the other day. I have no wish to divide, if he can satisfy the House that this enormous sum of £26,000,000 is really necessary and is going to be properly spent.

Major Sir PHILIP LLOYD-GREAME: I think that the speech of the mover of the Amendment, if I may say so, was a singularly short-sighted one. He seems to have made a certain number of researches, but if he had inspected the "Board of Trade Gazette" week by week he would have seen the circumstances under which these advances are made. They show the security for which the Government calls from the foreign country. It is a very stringent security indeed. There is the guarantee of a foreign bank of very considerable repute and on the top of that there is a deposit of the currency of the country of 15 per cent. in excess of the sterling equivalent of the amount advanced. Therefore, the risk which we are asked to take really is not a very considerable risk. I ought to say that, because this has been presented to the Committee as if the Committee were asked to sanction a gift of £26,000,000 of the taxpayers' money. The proposal is nothing of the kind. The proposal is that up to £26,000,000 there should be a revolving credit, and that revolving credit is being safeguarded in the most strict way possible in these various countries. The speech of the proposer of this Amendment would lead one to think that this country was simply being driven back into paying its way by taking in its own washing. It is impossible to get the trade of Europe going
without doing something of this kind, and it is untrue to suggest that this is backing a lack of initiative on the part of traders in this country. The traders have to go out and make their contracts in those countries, they have to send out their circulars, and they have to satisfy the purchasers in those countries, in the keenest competition with America and other countries, that the goods which they are sending are of a quality and price which are fair. It is only then that the Government steps in.
I am absolutely opposed to the Amendment, and I think, when you look at what has to be done, when you look at the condition of the whole of Central Europe, £26,000,000 is really not a large credit. One wants to be sure that the money is going to be expended on the most essential articles to get those countries going. All the States in Central Europe are reduced to a condition in which they can only be got going again in one of two ways. Of course, you can give them unlimited credit through the British Treasury, but the only result is that they come back time after time and say: "We really cannot get going, and you must extend the credit a little longer." That is imposible. When you get beyond that, one of two things must happen. You either get into a pure system of bargaining, and have to exchange the commodities which we send for the commodities which they have or which they can make at a comparatively short notice, or you can supply them with raw material and get them to manufacture, as has been done on a small scale, the proceeds being shared between the vendors in this country as suppliers of the raw material, and the manufacturers in those countries. Whichever of those two courses you take, it is absolutely essential to get the transport system in those countries going. You have to make those countries see that the false economic barriers between them must be broken down. I want to be sure that is being done in the spending of this £26,000,000. Take Poland, for instance. There is a superfluity of raw wool in this country. If you get the raw material manufactured on the Continent of Europe, it is going to make the woollen goods in this country cheaper for the constituents of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) to buy.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks as though I were opposing this Vote. I have merely moved the Amendment, in order to get some information.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am glad to hear it, because from the Amendment on the Paper I gathered that it was the intention of the hon. Member to limit this to £299,000.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is the exact sum that they have already spent.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I quite accept what my hon. Friend says, though I do not think he expressed it in such a way as to convey that he was altogether in favour of the proposal. I was taking the case of Poland. You want to get your wool manufactured on commission in Poland. The whole key of the Polish situation is the financing of the railway to Danzig. Until you have that railway working the position is impossible. You have in other parts of Europe commodities which can be brought to this country practically for barter and exchange. The thing that is holding it up is the lack of rolling stock, and any rolling stock which you send to these small countries is not going to be used to real advantage unless it can be sent over the borders of those countries to bring commodities from the places where they are and thus have a general movement. I am quite sure, with the jealousies which exist at the present moment between those small countries and with the economic barriers which they have set up, that the last thing in the world which they would be prepared to do without some form of control would be to allow their railway arteries to be used as real railway arteries.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what commodities we can get out of these Central European countries?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Certainly. From Rumania we can get maize at once, probably corn in a very few months, flax, and a very considerable quantity of oil. I understand that the Rumanian Government are prepared to sanction the export of a certain amount of those commodities. Unless some control is going to be exercised, I do not believe that this £26,000,000 will be spent to the best advantage. There are two possible ways in
which the Board of Trade could make these advances more effective. It could either limit the articles for which advances are to be made to real essential articles of reconstruction, or it could make it a condition, in the case of rolling stock at any rate, that it is to be used for the general purposes of Europe and not for purely isolated cases. There is a much wider alternative, and I should like to know if the Government have considered it, and that is whether, during this period of transition, as far as rolling stock is concerned, it would not be better to sell these commodities direct to the Economic Council of the League of Nations so that they could be used during the period of reconstruction in Europe for the whole of Europe and then earmarked afterwards for the various countries when those countries got established. I have only risen to raise the general question. I am perfectly certain that the Government ought to give this credit, and that it is not only reasonable but absolutely necessary. I do not think that the sum asked for is in any way excessive. I am not in the least surprised that only £299,000 or £300,000 has been used in the actual period to which my hon. Friend referred as it always takes a considerable time to get schemes of this kind going. Secondly, as I understand, the Government advances are only made against shipping documents from this counry, so that the trader has got to go out, make his contract, place his orders in this country where the goods have to be manufactured, and it is only when those goods are actually exported to the foreign country that the advance comes to be made. Therefore it is really no test to say that only £300,000 has been spent. I think that 26,000,000 as revolving credit is a perfectly reasonable sum. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will let us know if he has considered what steps can be taken to confine this 26,000,000 to the really essential articles, and to make sure that they are going to be used for the reconstruction of Central Europe as a whole, and not for isolated countries.

Mr. SUGDEN: I rise to support the proposal made by the Government, and I do so as representing not only an industrial constituency, but a constituency which is the very centre of the principal export trade of this country. If we are to
have that equipose of the exchanges which is vitally essential for the well being, not only of our own country, but of the countries of our Allies who have supported us in the stress and strain of War, then it is necessary that our Government should at any rate bring forward certain financial proposals that shall make it possible for us to trade with our Allies who have been hardly stressed during war-time, and also to open out once again the great industries which exist in the county Palatine of Lancashire. Something has been said about the necessity of opening out certain industrial work on behalf of the labour in some of our Allied countries, but I suggest that we have labour in our own country which desires to be utilised in the production of those things which are essential for other countries, and which I think we can make use of to the full without sundry certain raw materials as an hon. Member suggested, namely, wool to other countries. There are cotton, wool, leather, and the great machinery trades, four of the greatest industrial trades and industries upon which vitally hangs the industrial prosperity and well-being of this country, particularly of the working classes, and also the well-being of our Allies. What, may I ask, is being done by the workers themselves in respect of these matters? There is more money being put into the cotton trade by the working classes than in any industry in any other country in the world. Again the employing classes are now formulating plans to the amount of £20,000,000 to ensure supplies to such industry, and what then is this 26,000,000 which the Government propose to utilise for guaranteeing payment for the products of industry and labour when they are produced, which some hon. Member seemed to think was too much when we recollect that one section of a great industrial community is prepared to find the money I have mentioned. As well as the employing classes, the labouring classes are putting up the same amount in that industry and are joining hands with the employers to produce and send forth the goods which are wanted. But if the cotton goods are to be made and cotton yarn to be exported, we have got to be sure that when they get to Bulgaria, Turkey, Serbia, and many other
European States, that they will be paid for. As also woollen goods and machinery.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about Bulgaria?

Mr. SUGDEN: I prefer to pursue the subject in my own way, and I think I know a little more about this than the hon. and gallant Gentleman does. The credit which is being brought forward by the Government is distinctly for the type of trade to which I am referring, and it is both for the small countries and our Allies, such as France, who are prepared to take our goods if we can arrange for a solid method of prompt payment. If the great cotton trade which is one of the greatest export trades in the country is to be in a position to fight cheap labour in late enemy countries as well also in Eastern countries, and which is being utilised on the Continent then we must have our credit assured in the Balkans and elsewhere as well as in the Eastern markets. I therefore suggest that this sum of 26 millions is by no means sufficient to do the work. Something has been said about wool, but we are to-day in the position that while we can get wool we cannot sell unless credit is properly protected, and that remark applies also to leather goods and to the machinery trade which is, I need scarcely remind the House, a tremendous trade. In respect to suggestions which have been made I can assure the House, speaking as a plain ordinary business man, that in the conduct of our business we do not require assistance from either pro-Consuls or the Consular service, and if they give us freedom then with our practical business training and with the goodwill of our labour (the best in the world) we can enter into competition with even the great American business experts. We certainly do feel that it is absolutely essential that this financial credit should be established. If that is done, there will be a near and a surer day coming which will make it possible for the great splendid heroisms of the war days to be applied in the more prosaic days of peace, and which will lead to greater usefulness and a larger output which will be for the benefit of all sections of the community. It is for those reasons that I submit this credit is desirable.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The speech to which we have just listened is one of which I
hope my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will take note as an illustration of some of the dangers of proposals of this kind, because the hon. Gentleman is very anxious not only to get his 26,000,000 but possibly 260,000,000 or 2,600,000,000 more in order to help the cotton trade or other industries in their efforts to have a monopoly of the world's business. If every hon. Member representing an industrial constituency makes a similar claim, what is to be the position? That is not the Government proposal at all, and as the hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) pointed out, this proposal is not to subsidise the cotton industry or any other industry, but to enable certain specified areas of Europe which are now utterly incapable of getting themselves going commercially to do so once again. That is the proposal, as I understand it, and on those lines there is a very great deal to be said for it. You cannot trade with them on the assumption that you will not give them any credit unless they pay in cash or in six months or in a year. The thing is to put them on their legs again, from the larger view of the development of an area in Europe which is at present helpless and hopeless. I would remind hon. Gentlemen who have spoken of the great danger there is as to the use to which any credits of this kind may be put. We, unfortunately, know that credits which have already been granted for commercial usage have been promptly handed to military forces who are starting little wars of their own.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir R. Horne) indicated dissent.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am quite sure that any sums which are being utilised in that way were very carefully safeguarded. I am only indicating the dangers which at present exist, and what has been done, and I know what I am speaking about. I have some knowledge of the matter, and I say that is going on in these countries and requires the very greatest care to prevent its perpetuation. I am sure that the Committee as a whole is indebted to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) for the Amendment he has moved. But I think he will agree with me, on the assumption that one has some amount of agreement with the proposal, that the amount which he proposes is rather too small., If the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his
Amendment I propose to move another which I think would put the discussion upon a real practical basis. I would propose to substitute ten or twelve millions instead of twenty-six millions, and then, as the thing develops, the Government can come back to the House again and get further necessary sums if the work achieved justifies such a course.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment, and thus make way for the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir H. COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman mind telling the House how the figure of 26 millions is arrived at?—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is better to dispose of this Amendment first.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move to leave out the words "twenty-six" and to insert thereof the word "ten."
The Committee is in a rather unfortunate position, because we cannot have the terms of the Bill before us while discussing this Resolution. I think there is some justification for the complaint that a reasoned and complete statement was not made to the Committee in the first instance. I propose that the sum should be limited to £10,000,000, and when we have the Bill before us we will see as far as we can that the measure is adjusted to the purposes upon which I think the majority of Committee desire the principle to be applied. What need is there to subsidise the export trade of this country at the present moment? Instead of canvassing for orders, all merchants who export anything which the world really wants have to brush away the buyers from their doors. On the basis upon which, as I understand it, this proposal is made, that it is essential that these distressed communities should be assisted upon their commercial feet, and on that basis alone do I give any measure of support to this proposal, reserving, of course, all my rights when the Bill comes before us to move any Amendments which I may think necessary in order to limit the scope of the operations of the measure. I hope the Government will meet what I think is a very reasonable proposal. You have not advanced more than £30,000 at the present moment, and by this time next year you cannot
anywhere near exhaust the sum I propose to grant, but even if you do you can bring up a Supplementary Estimate, and next year, with the whole of the experience be-hind you, you can come down here with a businesslike proposal in a businesslike way.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think, in the first place, my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) is to be congratulated on having raised this question, because it is evident that, however much you may sympathise with and approve of the general policy involved in the Resolution—and I am one of those who do approve of it—yet it is quite clear that it is very important that every financial transaction in which this House is engaged should be very carefully watched. I rather hope in spite of that that my right hon. Friend opposite will not persist even in his Amendment. I think it is quite right to limit the amount of money to be spent on this to what ultimately proves to be necessary, but it is very difficult, it seems to me, to foresee how much is required in the course of the next year, and it might well be that it will be desirable to lay out even as large a sum as the Government are asking for. Moreover, all that this Resolution does it to put an external limit beyond which you cannot go in the Bill, and if when we come to discuss the Bill we find it really is incredible that they can want as much as £26,000,000, I apprehend that it will be quite possible for the House in Committee on that Bill to limit the amount that may be spent. It cannot increase it beyond the sum in this Resolution, but it can always bring it down, and I should be very sorry to do anything at this stage, and until we have had the thing thoroughly thrashed out, to hamper this policy in any way. I am so profoundly convinced that it is of the first interest—to put it only on that ground, though I would put it higher myself—to the prosperity of this country that we should restore the stricken countries in Europe to something like a normal condition that I should be prepared for very drastic and extensive proposals of the Government if they saw their way clear to bring them forward.
I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the economic dangers that threaten Europe at the present time. You may use
the most extreme and apparently exaggerated language, and you will still be short of the truth. At least, that is my view, and therefore I should look with great apprehension—indeed, I could not do it—to supporting any Amendment which limited the proposals which the Government thought necessary to bring forward. I most fully agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) said, that it is well worth the Government's consideration whether they should not take the opportunity of using this grant in order to induce a more reasonable behaviour on the part of some of the smaller States in Central Europe. That is a thing which I personally, if the Government saw their way to giving themselves that kind of power, either directly or through the League of Nations, should welcome. I am sure it is fantastic for us to try and help financially some of these countries which are simply throwing their money into the sea with warlike preparations on account of reasons which have not the slightest foundation in good sense or good policy, and I should be very glad to see considerable restraint put upon the exaggerated views of these powers. I do not agree with the policy which the Leader of the House has more than once apparently committed himself to, that we have no interest in whether peace is made or is not made in Central Europe, and that we can stand by and allow these countries still further to drive themselves into ruin. Therefore I should be glad to see some conditions of that kind put on this grant. I also agree that it would be very desirable—and I hope the Government will consider whether it is possible to do something of the kind—to insist on the breaking down of tariff and other similar barriers which these new States have erected between themselves. What they are doing is insane. They are cutting their own throats as hard as ever they can. They were already very nearly cut by the operations of the War, and if somebody could snatch the knife out of their hands, by this means or any other, I am sure it would be a most desirable thing to do. I also agree that anything that can be done to improve transit is of importance, but I do not quite see how you can use the grant to do that.
I am thinking of the general restoration of European trade and the general re-establishment of normal peace conditions.
It is not a question of artificially increasing the exports of any of these firms. There is one other matter which I think will have to be considered. I do not know whether it is part of the policy—I hope it is—to furnish these credits for the purpose of renewing trade with such countries as Austria; but if it is, the Government will have to consider the effect of the reparation terms of the Treaty. There is no doubt that we shall discuss this question on Wednesday, and I shall not do more than mention it now, but at the present time you have so arranged your financial terms that until the Reparation Commission takes some action everything you put into Austria or Hungary simply goes into the Reparation Fund and becomes useless for any purpose of restoring normal economic conditions. That is a matter which I hope the Government will consider very carefully in connection with this grant. I venture to hope that the House will approve of the general policy of this proposal and vote for the Resolution as it stands, leaving any further limitations and conditions to be imposed by the Bill, and I trust, if my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) does not think me impertinent in doing so, that he will consider whether he cannot withdraw his Amendment in that sense. I quite agree that very little money has yet been granted, but you have hardly began to restore peace yet. You have not ratified the treaties which affect Central Europe at all. With the exception of Poland, they are all still in the condition substantially in which they were left at the time of the conclusion of the Armistice. Once you begin to get things going, I hope they will go fairly rapidly. If they do not, we are face to face with economic disaster, for unless you can get things to move rapidly the condition is hopeless, and therefore I hope my right hon. Friend will not at this stage think it necessary to cut down the sum proposed by the Government. I trust the House will accept the Resolution, which I am sure is in the interests of this country, of Europe, and of the world at large.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I think the Committee as a whole are clearly in favour of the principle of this Resolution, but, speaking for myself and for some others, we should like a little more information as to the exact modus operandi when
this money is granted. We have not got the Bill before us, and I do not know whether it is in order for the Bill to be brought in—

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It cannot be introduced until we have got this Motion.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Then that makes it all the more necessary that we should know what we are voting for now. To whom are these credits to be given? The Resolution does not say and does not limit in any way the persons or firms or Governments to whom they are to be given. Do I understand they are only to be given to British firms, or are they to be given to foreign firms as well, or are the credits to be given to foreign Governments? Would it not be well to put into the Resolution some words to show to whom the credits are to be given?

Sir R. HORNE: The Bill will do that. It is perfectly clear that credits will only be granted to British firms.

Sir J. BUTCHER: That removes a doubt. If the credit is to be given to a British firm, I presume in most cases it will be given to a British seller of goods in this country, in this way, that the solvency of the foreign purchaser will be guaranteed, or that, at any rate, it will be made certain that the British seller of goods will get his money from the British Government if not from the foreign purchaser. If my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) is right, I do not see the necessity for this guarantee at all, for he claimed they are going to give the most stringent guarantees for the payment of the money.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: For ultimate payment. The point I made was that payment to the exporter is made on the spot against the goods exported. The security that the purchaser will pay is very strict, but the actual payment will not take place till two or three years later.

Sir J. BUTCHER: As I understand, the British seller is to be guaranteed by the guarantee of foreign banks, in addition to which a like currency of that foreign country is to be deposited in the bank with a certain margin—15 per cent. or so—in order to secure the payment when the date of payment arrives. If
that is the arrangement why should not the British exporters be satisfied with that? My hon. Friend will no doubt explain why this guarantee is necessary in addition. Then I should like to know, also, whether advances are to be made to British purchasers as well as to British sellers. If the British purchaser desires to get goods from a foreign country, can he have money advanced to him to enable him to purchase the goods? Under the terms of the Resolution it seems to me that can be done, because it says "granting of credits and the undertaking of insurances for the purpose of re-establishing overseas trade." Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me whether the purchaser in this country is to have money advanced to him in order to enable him to buy or not.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The seller.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I am glad to learn that the credits are not to be given to British firms who want to purchase goods in foreign countries. We are whittling it down gradually, and I am very glad to know the exact nature of the liabilities we are undertaking in this Resolution. I think we should also be glad to know as to the sort of articles which are to be exported under this Government guarantee. I think someone in the course of these Debates said that locomotives were to be exported. If that is so, I think it is a little dangerous. We want locomotives very badly in this country. I see the Minister of Transport here, and I know he is anxious to get as many locomotives and wagons as possible in order to remove goods from the docks. When complaint has been made of the great congestion in some of the docks, we have been told that it is due to want of locomotives, to want of wagons, and, in some cases, I grant you, to want of drivers. Therefore, I should be glad if the Board of Trade would tell us the sort of articles which are to be exported, payment for which they are going to guarantee. I think there are a great many articles which would pay the exporter to export, but it would not pay us as a nation very well that they should be exported. Therefore, no doubt, my right hon. Friend will indicate that nothing will be exported under the guarantee which is required for our own necessities. When we hear, as I have
no doubt we shall, an explanation from the Government upon these points, we shall perhaps be in a better position to judge whether £26,000,000 is too much, or whether we should limit it as is proposed.

Mr. MYERS: Every speaker upon this question up to now has given support in general terms to the principle embodied in the proposals. I rise to take the other side, and strike the other note. I do hope that no Member in this House will support these proposals on the ground stated by the hon. Member, namely, that they will have the support of the working-class population of the country. If I understand working-class sentiment in this country, they would not support a proposal of this character.

Mr. SUGDEN: And we speak with equal assurance.

Mr. MYERS: If it is contended that proposals of this kind should be put into operation for the purpose of meeting competition of cheap labour on the Continent, it strikes me as a dangerous innovation, and an exceedingly wide door to open. I think we are also entitled to ask for some measure of consistency on the part of hon. Members of this House. When the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) are in agreement upon any particular question—

Sir F. BANBURY: You may be certain it is right.

Mr. MYERS: The plain man may be pardoned for enquiring what is going to happen. During the past few months we have heard at various times, on both sides of the House, protests and objections of every kind against Government interference with trade, embargoes, control, restriction, and interference of every sort. I suggest that these proposals are generally the same in principle as many of the things to which objection has been taken. We have not been told whether there has been any demand made by the traders of the country for these proposals to be put into operation. I would rather suggest that trade and industry of the country object to be spoon-fed by proposals of this character. But the basis of my objection is on other lines. The Select Committee on War Wealth, in its Report, set forth the fact that 340,000
people have increased their wealth during the period of the War by over £4,000,000,000. That is the product of trade and commerce of this country. The necessities of the community and the requirements of the State have been made the hunting-ground for profiteers in every department of industrial and commercial activity, and, after these colossal profits have been made, we have a proposal put before this House to cover the traders of the country to the extent of £26,000,000, or whatever sum may be accepted—an insignificant item in comparison with the great profits that have been made during the War period. It comes to this, that at a time when these profits could be made, these profits were accepted, and now when it is a question of an element of risk entering into trading operations, Government assistance has to be procured. Is it contended that the trade and commerce of the country, from a private interest point of view, have broken down? Are we to understand that trade and commerce can only work now under favourable conditions, and that as soon as unfavourable circumstances arise, the Government has to come to the assistance? If we are to understand that, it is as well the House should know. No, I rather suggest that it has been a question of the traders of the country taking the profits under favourable conditions, and that now the Government have been called upon to cover the losses when conditions are not quite so favourable. I want to suggest that, under the present conditions of trading in this country, the Government are not called upon in the name of the taxpayers to undertake any such obligation.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Perhaps it would be better if, at this point, I were to answer some of the questions that have been put in the course of the discussion this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), who moved the first Amendment, complained very much that the White Paper was too short, that the speech of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury was too short, that my speech on a previous occasion was too short, and he was altogether dissatisfied with the brevity of everything. I have already apologised for the fact that when this Resolution first came forward, I was not aware it was coming on, and I was not here, and, the Financial Secretary, understanding
there was no opposition, undertook to try to pilot it through the House. On the second occasion it was taken some time between 10 and 11 o'clock, and I did then explain, at as much length as was possible, most of the points which hon. Members who have come here for the first time to-day, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), represent as having been carefully concealed from them up to this moment. If they had been here that evening they would not have had to ask nearly so many questions. The same remark applies to the hon. Member for Wood Green, and as he is not here I think I had better pass to the general Debate which has taken place. There seems to have been a fear in the minds of some people that there is going to be a very great loss on this scheme. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) explained that the conditions of the advances had already been in the "Board of Trade Journal," and were such as to secure, as far as possible, that there would be no loss on these transactions.

Mr. KILEY: Cannot the information be circulated to Members of the House?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Anybody can read the "Board of Trade Journal" who has the mind for it. I should have thought it was one of the works which the hon. Member would have read every morning. The matter has been explained by my hon. and gallant Friend. The purchaser in a foreign country has to take up a Bill of Lading, and make a deposit with an agent approved by us in the currency of the country, calculated on the basis of the exchange, plus a margin which has been stated roughly at 15 per cent., which will have to be maintained. That will be held as security. They will have to pay interest at one point above Bank Bate, so that the hon. Member is quite wrong in assuming that we should be sending out the whole of the money without any interest. Those who get the advances made to them—the sellers in this country—have to pay a commission, which commission is intended to be used to meet the expenses of the Department which works it, and any possible losses that may accrue. It is impossible to say there will not be any losses, but we feel that very great and adequate safeguards are inserted
in these rules. Really, the question is not so much—

Sir F. BANBURY: Who is going to do this discounting business?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A Department under the Board of Trade, coupled with a gentleman in the banking world who. I have no doubt, is well known to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. KILEY: What is his name?

5.0 P.M.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Mr. Davis. But the real question is, are we, or are we not, to extend a helping hand to these countries which have been crushed by the War? There is also the question of it being advantageous to our trade. It might lead us to get a footing in the trade of countries where we had not got one before, and it might be very valuable later, at a time when those countries are recovering, and when, possibly, trade with other countries from here is falling off. I should also like to remind the Committee that a similar advance is to be made by the United States, only a much larger sum—$1,000,000,000. This has been set aside for the purpose by the Government of the United States, to be administered by' the War Finance Organisation, to grant assistance to the export trade. So that they are already engaged in the very same operation as ourselves. I should also like to add that the Supreme Council emphasise very strongly the need of giving credit to these shattered countries in order to give them some chance of restarting The hon. and learned Member for York asked whether this would be limited to British firms and sellers in this country. Yes, the advances will be so limited. The hon. Member for Spen Valley talked about spoon-feeding trade and so on. When it appears that up to the present moment, as has already been said, only a very small sum has been advanced, it does not seem that the traders of the country are tumbling over one another for this assistance. That does not, however, prove that at some coming time applications will not be much more numerous than now. There are other markets very much easier to get at by the traders of this country. So far, the articles on which money has
been lent have been mainly textiles, cottons, woollens, iron and steel manufactures, rubber manufactures, leather goods, and electrical goods. One hon. Member spoke about rolling stock and made a very interesting suggestion on this subject. If it were possible in any way to make use of these credits m order to see that the goods supplied were used not for selfish and purely internal purposes in the countries to which they were sent we should be very glad; certainly this aspect of the matter will be considered. So far I do not know that any actual money has been spent on the export of rolling stock, but there are agricultural machinery and other things which we hope will be useful.
Now, as regards the amount. Those who are keenly interested in this subject, like the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), would have liked a very much larger sum, but the Treasury is the final arbiter in these matters, and the figure of £26,000,000 was put down, after consideration, as a reasonable sum which we might expect to be spent in the course of the six years for which these credits will run. I am bound to say that if we are giving this money to be of any use in these countries we cannot very well ask for less; and if the traders of this country do not come and ask for this assistance, then the money will not be spent. In any case, the whole transaction, as will be seen in the Bill when presented, will be terminable in six years. The separate credits are for three years. To come with a supplementary estimate, which is what the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggests, if the £10,000,000 proposed is not enough, is, as he knows perfectly well, a very inconvenient method of proceeding. When he comes to think that this money is supposed to be revolving credits for a number of years, I hope he will agree that £26,000,000 is not an excessive sum, especially when he takes into consideration the fact that assistance will only be granted after very careful scrutiny in each case, and only if there is a genuine demand for trade. I hope, therefore, he will not press the Amendment, but will allow the House to pass this Resolution. Further discussion may take place on the Bill, which cannot be introduced until this Money Resolution has been passed.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I think it to be made perfectly clear that by this
Resolution it is not contemplated to assist British traders. It is not desired at all for that purpose. I have some Know ledge of its inception, and this money is for the purpose of assisting various shattered countries in Europe to rehabilitate themselves.

Mr. MYERS: It does not say so!

Mr. ROBERTS: If my hon. Friend will listen to me. I think I shall be able to show him how the thing stands. Immediately the Armistice was signed, charity had to be bestowed upon these peoples, and it looked as if that was going to be a continuous process. As a Member of the Supreme Economic Council, I can say that that Council very soon became aware of this fact, that unless these people could be persuaded to settle down and work for themselves there was no hope for them, but their destruction was absolutely sure. We have asked time after time for these credits to be given. The Supreme Economic Council is not a body interested in the British trader as such. It is a body representative of every Allied nation and contains amongst its number men holding all shades of political opinion. They were at least agreed upon this: that the Allied countries ought to give credits in order to restore these other countries. Mr hon. Friend opposite opposed this Motion because he felt it was detrimental to the British working classes. I approve of the Motion from the opposite point of view. It is certain that until Europe is settled, and these countries get down to the position of maintaining themselves and of having surpluses to dispose of the cost of living in this country can never lower. That is the main fact to keep in mind, and the reason why, therefore, I support this Motion is that it is in the direct interests of the British working classes. Until these various countries, by our help, are able to cultivate their own soil and produce in their own factories and so to diminish the shortage in the world there is no possibility of the cost of living lowering in this country. Might I express the hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles will withdraw his Amendment. It would be a very graceful act on his part. I am certain it would have a very good effect on opinion in every European country, for let us keep the point perfectly clear in our minds: that it is not a British demand behind this
Motion; it is an Allied demand. It originally emanated from the Supreme Economic Council, a body which has done extremely valuable work in assisting these distressed countries in recent times. A Bill founded upon this Resolution is absolutely necessary if these countries are to be restored to anything like their normal productive capacities. As the Noble Lord, the Member for Hitchin pointed out, even though this sum is passed to-day, it does not bind the House. When the Bill is introduced, and the whole question discussed, if it appears that the sum asked for is not fully justified the House can reduce it. The main fact for which the right hon. Gentleman opposite is fighting is that the House should maintain its control over finance, but that can be assured without carrying opposition to its extreme. As a late Member of the Supreme Economic Council, and as one having been brought into direct contact with the needs of these countries, and with, I think, a full appreciation of the facts, I desire to say that simply to dole out charity to these countries is absolutely useless. What help, however, we can afford them, to inspire them to settle down themselves; and to produce what is needed for home and export purposes we ought to do. I hope the Resolution will be unanimously adopted.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is perfectly delightful to listen in this year 1920 to this series of beautiful free-trade speeches from Members opposite. I do not know how the Member for Hendon will be able to reconcile his speech to-day with that, for instance, of his co-director Mr. Dudley Docker, but that is a matter, I suppose, of domestic concern. After listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich I can only hope that he will repeat these beautiful sentiments about building-up German trade and imports into this country and the cheapening of the necessaries of life in this country, when he stands up for further protection for that industry with which he has recently become associated. After all, these speeches are matters of universal application, and not merely when this particular Government measure is brought forward. I am particularly interested in this Government measure for a reason which has not been noticed by any previous speaker, though it is
reasonable on the face of it. Here we have the great anti-Socialist, anti-Bolshevik Government introducing —what? Introducing a State Trading Bill with a capital of £26,000,000. They are talking about a revolving credit, a beautiful new term of £26,000,000. What is it in effect? In effect it is nothing more or less than starting a Government Bank, a State Bank, for assisting foreign trade, with a capital of £26,000,000. The proposal has this little difference from a State Bank proper—that in the first place it is run at a loss, though I see no reason why it should be, but we will talk about this later; and, in the second place, the administration of this Bank is curtailed to six years. No doubt there are certain circumstances in which a State bank may prove useful, but I think the directors should be elected by the community, and we should know their names. A State bank controlling £26,000,000 is an extremely dangerous instrument. You may have any amount of favouritism and a direction of the funds towards supporting industries like the cotton industry, or the leather industry, or the manufacture of railway wagons, and all those who are loudest in their demands in this House and the privacy of the Board of Trade may get more assistance than they ought to get from a State bank. I think this State bank should have representatives of the public upon it from this House, who will be able to portion out with some fairness the amount of assistance they are to get from the bank.
Why is this new State bank to be run at a loss? Why should it not be run like any other bank? I see that they are charging the minimum of 6 per cent. on the discount business and making arrangements for security which seem to be fairly good, although a margin of 15 per cent. with the exchange fluctuating as it is in France, may involve the Government in severe losses. Still, it is run upon ordinary business lines as far as possible. Certainly the bank ought to arrange to make sufficient profit to cover its losses and the expense of management. I think a State bank should be made a self-supporting institution with the risks and the cost of management taken into account, and there ought to be a certain amount of public control and not simply an official of the Board of Trade, and then
you would have an institution which might not only assist the smashed countries through our export and import trade as producers, but it would give us a hint as to the road by which we might ultimately break that great banking monopoly in this country which is strangling not only trade but the whole industry and commerce of this country. I welcome this measure not only because I think there is something to be said for a State bank, but because it is the first word that has been said by any of our successful Allies in a practical direction for re-establishing the east of Europe. I hope this may be a forerunner of better things. The parallel of America which has been drawn is not accurate, because that is not a State bank but an amalgamation of the banks themselves. This is the first time one of the Allies have taken in hand the development of Germany industry in order that we may get cheaper German goods in this country, and I am very glad that the hon. Member for York supports this proposal.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I did not say a word about Germany, and I was only thinking of other countries.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We want cheap goods and to keep down the cost of living, and to-day the Tariff Reform Members have made Free Trade speeches. I congratulate the Government upon the establishment of a State bank to break the banking monopoly.

Sir F. BANBURY: I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken that he has given a misnomer to this new institution, because I should call it more of a discount house than a bank. What is going to be done with the assistance of the expert gentlemen who are supposed to receive a good salary is to discount certain bills present to members of the cotton trade who sell goods at a high price to somebody else, and this proposal is in order that they may have the guarantee of the Government to get a good profit and run no risk. I do not understand this propsal from the taxpayer's point of view and I do not see where he comes in. I should have thought that the cotton trade had made enough money during the last few years without bringing in the taxpayer to their assistance. That is one reason why certain Members support this Bill.
I know there are other reasons apparently totally different which have been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts), and they are mostly charitable reasons. They say they are anxious to support distressed countries, but they did not tell us whether they desired to support such countries as Bulgaria, Turkey or Germany. I should like to know why the British taxpayer should be called upon to support people who have killed most of our relations, and caused us a debt of £8,000,000,000. They brought this trouble upon themselves, and why should we be called upon to support them. I believe the right hon. Gentleman opposite is right when he said that the true reason is not to assist British trade, because that is merely by-play, but it is to advance money to these foreign countries for charitable reasons. I was under the impression that this proposal was going to do some good to British trade, and I intended to support it with the addition of safeguards. I do not approve of the Government interfering with trade and business. At first I did not thoroughly understand what the Government meant to do and I was willing to give a small amount to see whether they could make a success of something in the trading line. Now I understand that this proposal is for charitable purposes and that it has something to do with the League of Nations and the Supreme Economic Council and is to be devoted to rescuing struggling people abroad.
I object to the taxpayers' money being squandered in this way. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich wishes to help these people abroad let him put his hand into his own pocket, and not into other people's pockets. We now know the real reason why this Bill has been brought forward. I could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) supported this proposal. I thought it was a Protectionist scheme to assist certain trades in England, and I was surprised to see that the right hon. Gentleman has now become a Protectionist. This proposal is connected with the League of Nations in which we know the right hon. Gentleman takes a good deal of interest, and it is to promote that object and not any Protectionist
principle that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of this proposal. I shall support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend opposite because I think £10,000,000 is quite enough to experiment with in this way. If my hon. Friend had made it £500,000 or proposed to drop it altogether and leave the League of Nations and the distressful countries who deserve to suffer to get out of the mess into which they have got themselves, I should have supported him. I should like to know what is the real object of this proposal. Is it to assist the countries who fought against us, or is it intended to do something for British trade or something for both? If my Noble Friend can assure me that this proposal is to assist distressed countries and the League of Nations I shall have much pleasure in voting against the whole thing.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I wish to ask my hon. Friend to give us some assurance that one of the purposes of this loan is not what has been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Hitchin, namely, that of supplying raw materials to other countries. If that is one of the purposes I for one shall most certainly vote against this proposal. If it is only for the purpose of establishing credits for the purchase of manufactured goods in this country by people in other countries who cannot afford to pay owing to the loss of exchange, then I am in favour of it, and I presume that is so. Instead of supporting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Peebles, I should like to see this sum very greatly increased, because I am certain there are very large areas in Europe where people are really in possession of great potential wealth and who are unable at the present moment to pay for our manufactured goods. I believe this measure is a good one to improve our trade in Europe. Rumania is not an enemy country and she is one of our friends, and yet that country is unable to pay us for manufactured goods at the present moment, although no one will deny that Rumania is one of the richest countries in the world, and in a very short time she will be able to pay. Therefore, instead of £26,000,000, I think we ought to vote £250,000,000. I cannot imagine a better investment for this country than to help our traders to provide work and wages
for the working people of this country. I would ask my hon. Friend to give some assurance that this sum is not going to be spent for the purpose of supplying raw material to other countries?

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: When this Motion was introduced by the President of the Board of Trade late at night I made the suggestion that these credits should only be given to certain countries specified by name, and was informed that they were only to be granted to States on the borders of Russia. If I remember arightly they were Jugo-Slavia, S.E. Russia, Poland, Finland, and the Baltic Provinces. I understood the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Board of Trade to say that these were the only countries to which this precious scheme of the Government was to apply, and that the object was not to assist former enemies at all. But the Government had not the courage to say so, and they carefully camouflaged their intentions by leading the House to believe on the last occasion when they attempted to smuggle this measure through at a late hour of the night, that these credits were only required for the border States named. But we have now from the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Roberts) a declaration that the credits are to be impartially applied to all countries according to their needs, and not according to their policies during the last five years. I think this matter should be cleared up at once. We ought to be told if these credits are to be applied impartially according to the wish of the League of Nations, and apart from any idea as to which side the people fought. If they are to be so applied, then I shall vote against the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), and if also the object is only to bolster up an artificial trade in those countries which owe their present ruin to the direct policy and action of this country, I shall support the Chairman of the party to which I belong I do not think it is fair the Government should leave us in doubt on this point, because there might, as a result, be a good deal of voting under a wrong impression.
I again ask, are these credits' to be applied to trade in any markets where they may be required, or are they only to be given to certain favoured and special States, some of whom were recently our
enemies? Is it the case, for instance, that the Jugo-Slavs, because they were traitors to the Austrian Crown, are now to be bolstered up in this way, while a country like Austria is not to be helped, although her need is infinitely greater? If that is the case I shall vote against the proposal, because I look upon it as a totally wrong policy, and one which will even injure the countries to which the credits are to be applied. May I, in passing, point out that the United States is not as a Government supplying credits of this nature, but it is being done there by private bankers, Mr. Hoover, who is a great authority on questions of credits and supplies, particularly objected to Government assistance. I would remind the House that this proposal may lead to great developments in the future. I am opposed to the Government taking over banking business. They have too much power as it is, and if they should get a banking monopoly, why then an unprincipled Government—I do not for a moment suggest that this is an unprincipled Government—might use the credits for political purposes, and thus get into their hands a power which none of our Governments have had, at any rate in recent times, and which they should not have.
Again, why should we go forward alone to supply this £26,000,000? Are we in such a flourishing, financial condition that we can afford to scatter this gold over the suffering wastes of Europe? Why should we not invite' the Allied Powers to take part in this work? If we show our willingness to shoulder all these burdens, and if we fail to insist on the co-operation of the other countries, the impression will gain ground that we are so terribly rich a country that we can be left to look to supply the needs of all suffering countries throughout the whole of Europe, without any assistance or co-operation from our Allies. May I again point out what a terrible confession of failure this whole Money Resolution is? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich told us that the Supreme Economic Council had again and again pointed out the necessity for some such system of artificial credit, and the hon. and gallant Member opposite, who is a member of that Supreme Economic Council, has suggested that it was their policy to come to the aid of the ruin and misery now prevalent throughout Europe, which is
one of the results of the blockade of the coasts of Russia and Germany which we carried on for nine months after the Armistice. I know I would be out of Order if I were to attempt to pursue that argument, but I do want to point out that we are asked to vote this £26,000,000, because of the shattered condition of the markets in those countries, a condition which is directly due to the action of the Supreme Council. Indeed, I wonder that any honest man like the right hon Member for Norwich was able to remain so long a member of that Council.
May I say one word about the countries which the representative of the Board of Trade told this House this money is required for? Take the case of Poland. We are asked to vote credits in order to enable British manufacturers to export manufactured goods to Poland, goods which the Poles cannot themselves pay for. I can quite understand that they cannot, for the Polish mark is now worth less than one halfpenny. Poland is racked with typhus and cholera, and half "the country is seething with revolution; yet an army of nearly a million men is being maintained there. No wonder the ordinary British merchant is not able by ordinary commercial methods to sell his goods in that country. No ordinary bank would supply the necessary credit, and therefore this House is asked to vote £26,000,000 of the taxpayers' money. Poland, I repeat, is in an appalling condition, and no sensible business man would open up a big trade there on credit, because it suffered under part of the "barbed-wire" policy followed till quite recently by this Government and its Allies. I say we are responsible directly for the present state of Poland. Had it not been for that policy we could have had a peaceful Poland with its inhabitants at work cultivating the soil and there would have been no need to ask for British credit. But having created this general misery and danger we are asked now to apply sticking plaster in the form of £26,000,000!
Do hon. Members think that £26,000,000 sterling will be sufficient? Does the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) think so? Once a man begins to take drugs he goes on taking them, and this artificial stimulus for trade, once started, will have to be continued, and again and again there will be demands for more and more
money. Once give Government subsidies and they will always be needed. You have only to bear in mind the case of the armour-plate works in Sheffield. Those firms still need the Government subsidy given years ago to enable them to keep up their plant, and the same will be the case with overseas trade in Europe. If artificially started by means of subsidies those subsidies will have to be renewed time and again, just as a man who takes morphia needs more and more of it as time goes on.

Captain ELLIOT: But people can be cured of taking drugs.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, by cutting off the drug and by taking some anti-toxin. I want to know if this money is to be supplied to other parts of Russia as distinct from those I have mentioned. Take Siberia. There is a great possibility of trade there. Will firms be entitled to ask for credit for exports there, or will it depend on the colour of the Government in Siberia? Will the fact it is pink or red mean that this country will be unable to supply it with credit? This is a very important question. During the brief recess I have taken the trouble to consult a number of successful business men upon this scheme, and they have all given me much the same reply. They say the one great objection to such a system is the opportunities it affords for corruption, or what is very much like corruption Of course; I am sure the Government will take every possible step to prevent corruption, but the point is that these credits usually are not given to firms impartially. They are given out by permanent officials who have the handling of them to firms which they know. Favouritism is perhaps a better word to use in this regard than corruption. They favour certain firms which they know of; by the very nature of the case they must do that. They could not grant credits to every firm that applied, and as a leading Manchester man said, "in these things kissing goes by favour." Whether the suspicions of these business men are justified or not I do not know. It gives possibilities for favouritism, and, of course, it gives enormous political power. For that reason, it is extremely mischievous.
This is the third occasion on which I have criticised this Resolution, and I shall
probably criticise the Bill when it comes before the House. I now want to make a constructive suggestion, and to put forward a plan which I think the Government ought to have adopted instead of coming to this House. To ruin foreign markets does not help us, even if they were enemies, because they were good customers of ours in the past, and we hope they will be again in the future. The great need of these countries to-day is raw material, and this scheme, apparently, applies only to manufactured goods. I think one hon. Member to-day said that charity was not sufficient for these countries; they must expect to work. If we supply them with manufactured goods on credit they will not work. What is required is raw material, to enable them to get their factories going and produce their own goods. [An HON. MEMBER: "And machinery!"] I quite agree that they want machinery, but the greatest need to-day, particularly in Vienna, according to the statistics I have seen, is raw material. In Vienna there are many great factories that have not been damaged, if my information is correct, but they cannot get the raw material to start them. I only mention that one case, but there are many other semi-allied countries which, I daresay, would come in as well. If they could get raw materials under this scheme I think there would be something in it, but it should not be undertaken by this country alone; it is par excellence a matter for international action. There ought to be an agreement among all the Powers that credits should be given to these shattered countries on certain rigid conditions, and those conditions are that the countries themselves should put their own financial house in order, and should apply a real system of taxation. My hon. Friend takes this matter lightly. I suppose he thinks we cannot do that; but the whole of the Powers of the world, combined together, could do it, especially if they said that credits would only be given on those terms. We could insist that those credits should only be given to countries which economise and adopt a sound system of taxation, and, above all, cease making war on their neighbours and demobilise their overgrown armies. A scheme on those lines, which should have been undertaken, of course, fifteen months ago, might, if
pushed through in a large way, with vision and imagination, and a little forgetfulness of hatred and vindictiveness, have gone far towards saving a great deal of misery and suffering abroad, and, in the long run, helping the best interests of this country. To come to this House with this petty sticking plaster, this £26,000,000, which can be swallowed up forty times over and make no difference, and to suggest that we alone should undertake it, is, as I said on the last occasion when this Resolution came before the House, an affront to the intelligence of the House of Commons.

Mr. KILEY: If I thought that this scheme had the advantages mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts), I should feel inclined to give it a certain amount of support, but any belief I had in that direction has been killed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who has informed the Committee that, before these goods are received by a purchaser, the purchase value will be put up to the cash value of the goods plus 15 per cent. How that is going to restore these war-stricken countries passes my comprehension. We were told that only £15,000 had been taken up, and that is the real explanation of the failure of the scheme up to the present. It is difficult enough to do business in the ordinary way when you demand payment from your customer, but, when you demand payment plus 15 per cent., I do not know of any commercial firm or buyer who would do business on those terms. If that method is to be continued in the future, the scheme will not be worth the time that the House has given to it. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that he is embarking on a dangerous course in trying to get this Bill through. Export trade is not limited to trade done on the lines of these proposals. A very large overseas trade is done in which merchants and traders take considerable risks. I know of no reason why I myself should take risks when certain other people can go to the Government and, so long as they ship to certain countries, can get guarantees. I should demand that the scheme should be extended to cover all risks which the merchants and traders of this country are taking. The Government will have considerable difficulty in refusing that. If they do refuse
it, traders will seriously consider whether they should continue incurring certain risks when they know that, by putting pressure on the Government, they will be able to obtain some security which at the present time they lack. Another point which I would commend seriously to the Board of Trade is the method by which this Committee passes or approves of discounting bills presented to them. Is this done by special selection, or by what method is it decided who shall have credit and who shall not? Is it open to any trader, so long as he has a banker's recommendation that he is a man of substance, to obtain the necessary credit from the Board of Trade; or, if not, what is the procedure? Is the matter left entirely to one individual? If so, that is indeed a very dangerous course for any Government Department to encourage, or even to support, and before giving my vote on this Resolution, I should like to know that the Government will seriously consider some amendment or limitation which will prevent the entire power being placed in the hands of any individual, however able or conscientious he may be.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division on this matter, but I regret that I cannot see my way to withdraw my Amendment. Whether the object is a philanthropic one under the ægis of the League of Nations, or whatever the object may be, I do not think this House ought to let go its control of finance, and it was with that object that I moved my Amendment.

Major HAYWARD: I am rather sorry that my right hon. Friend has made that statement, because I think this Amendment should have been accepted by the Government, and I am sorry that they do not see their way to accept it. Although the discussion has revealed a general sympathy with the object which the Government hope to attain by means of this Bill, it has revealed also that the transactions about to be undertaken by the Government are of such a character that they ought to remain under the constant and jealous control of Parliament. If that is desired, I do not see how Parliament is to maintain any control if the Bill is to be passed with the Resolution as it stands. I listened very carefully to the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Board of Trade why the Government do not accept this Amendment, and the only reason he gave was that, as everybody knows, it is very inconvenient to come to the House again on Supplementary Estimates. All I can say is that that inconvenience has not been a very effective deterrent in the past, because we have had Supplementary Estimates of every conceivable kind. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is not going to press the Amendment to a Division. I know that he probably would not obtain a very large amount of support, but I do think the Government might consider the advisability of accepting the Amendment, so as to give and retain Parliamentary control over this matter and over the transactions which the Government will carry out under the scheme.

6.0 P.M.

Major MOLSON: I should not have intervened in the Debate had I not thought that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) was exaggerating the case against the Government. I think we ought to support the Government in helping to develop our overseas trade, and I think we ought to regard it, not as a matter of philanthropy or charity, but as a purely business transaction. Moreover, I do not think we ought to confuse the business that we should do with these young States with the business that we ought to do with Austria. Surely it is a good business transaction for this country to advance a certain amount of capital to protect its own traders when they are exporting machinery to young countries which have raw material to trade with. On the other hand, it is not so necessary to export machinery to Austria as it is to help Austria to get the raw material with which to carry on her manufactures. The last speaker also raised what I thought was a very fair criticism, in asking how the Government intends to select the traders to whom it will give credit. I would also like to refer to the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 23rd March, in which he distinctly said that he foresaw that it might be possible that there would be an ultimate change on the Exchequer. I see that the hon. Gentleman is here, and perhaps he can give us some sort of indication as to what the extent of that charge may be. The two Ministers do not seem to be quite
in agreement on that point. I think the House has a perfect right to keep some sort of control on the finances. I do not wish to oppose overseas trade in any way, but I think they ought to give us information and not ask for too much of a free hand. From those points of view, I think the Government might accept the Amendment and limit it to £10,000,000.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I wish to ask one or two questions before opposing what appears to me to be a most iniquitous measure. I am not opposed in the least to measures for the reconstruction of those countries in the South of Russia, where reconstruction is so urgently required, but surely it is not a question for one nation to deal with by herself. Is it a fact that this measure has been proposed sporadically, and perhaps philanthropically by Great Britain without any consultation with the other Allies? Surely if we are going to supply money to purchase rolling stock or machinery or supply other requirements of those countries, there ought to be some co-ordination amongst the Great Powers undertaking the work. We are informed that America is also providing a similar loan. Surely we should see that a conference is called and measures taken to prevent overlapping in the provision of rolling stock. One country might be called upon to provide locomotives, another rolling stock, another machinery, and so on. I should like to ask whether this proposal has been before the Supreme Economic Council, and, if not, would it not be better that the measures for pro viding credits for these countries should be directed by the Economic Council, or preferably, perhaps, by a Committee of the League of Nations? This measure ought to be dealt with on a much wider scale than that on which, as far as we can see from the very scanty information provided, this credit is to be administered. I would press the right hon. Gentleman to inform us whether it is intended that Siberia is to be included amongst the countries to which this credit is to be supplied, and, if not, why not? We were informed last Session that credit was to be supplied to the south-east part of Russia. I am sure it is not the intention to provide money to trade with the Bolsheviks, but politically there is no objection to trading with Siberia.
In my judgment the whole matter ought to be dealt with from a much wider and more fundamental point of view. It would be far better to provide credits not for this or that firm which happened to get the ear of the Board of Trade or some other Department, but to the Governments responsible for administering those States. But before that can be done, those countries must be recognised. May I call attention to their position. The boundaries of Poland have not been defined, and the political condition is still very unstable. The only country which has a status which can be called a status, and the only country which has been recognised by the Allies and has any degree of stability at all is Finland, and Finland is ruled by reactionaries and is probably the poorest of all these countries. Esthonia, abounding in riches, has been recognised de facto but not de jure. She has been recognised by Italy. Italy, being a democratic country, had the foresight to see the need for stabilising all these smaller States and putting them on a firm basis. Before we supply money to these countries to assist them to build up their industries, we should recognise them both de facto and de jure. Look at it again from a business point of view. We are supplying many millions of the British taxpayers' money to a country which has not been recognised by us. It may be absorbed by Soviet Russia, or these countries may amalgamate with one another. Political conditions may occur which may upset the whole commercial and economic stability, and from the business point of view it would be far better to give them complete economic and political recognition before we provide them with money in this form. No one denies that they are in need of money to build up their industries, but instead of supplying it to this or that firm or bank, perhaps a Greek or a German bank, it would be far better to supply this credit as a Government loan or a currency loan to the Government of the country. All these new Governments which are struggling for existence and are tottering on the brink of the abyss of economic dissolution are anxiously in need of Government loans, and it would be far better, after we had stabilised them by recognising them completely, to supply this money through the medium of the Government. I wrote a fortnight
ago to the Department for particulars concerning the machinery for distributing this money. Perhaps it is due to the Easter Holidays that I have not received them.

Sir W. RUTHERFORD: The last speaker, in common with almost all the critics of the Vote, has assumed that this country is being called upon to provide money for Finland, Esthonia, and a number of places which "have been mentioned, and the criticism has proceeded upon that basis. Nothing of the sort is intended. This is to give credits to British people for British trade, and to assist our overseas trade, and not the overseas trade of a number of Rumanians, Esthonians, Ukranians or people like that. This is to help to establish British trade with these places which have been desolated and, owing to the exchange and the destruction of their machinery and their property, practically cannot establish their trade without having some credit. I am the Chairman of the largest British company which has to do with Rumania. At present our exchange is 240 to the £ instead of 25. That means that the Rumanian money which is coming to that country, and which is still the current coin there, when compared with our currency and our prices here is only worth a tenth of what it was before the War, though undoubtedly that wealthy country, producing as it does enormous quantities of grain and oil, will in a few years be normal again. Rumania wants clothes, boots, machinery, tools of all descriptions and particular small steel tools, which our manufacturers can supply, and which would immensely help its production, but it cannot afford to pay for them at present because it would mean paying out ten times the normal prices. What is required is a system of assisting credit under which the acceptances for the goods supplied by British manufacturers and traders could be renewed two or three times until the situation became normal and the bills could be taken up. If I understand these critics correctly, they also assume that we are not only going to give this money away, but that we are going to give it in cash. Nothing of the sort is intended. It is simply a question of credit. This sum of £26,000,000 in the shape of credit would probably enable £150,000,000 worth of business to be done. It is not a question
of providing £26,000,000 in cash, but of a sufficient Government guarantee to cover the extraordinary position which has been created by the War in order to enable the bills to be financed until things become normal. It may be some advantage to these other countries to get these goods, but the idea of the Resolution is to help British manufacturers and merchants at this critical juncture in the history of oversea trade to secure, possibly for ever, markets which have been German, and which now we ought to use every possible effort to keep for ourselves.

Sir F. BANBURY: Am I to understand that what is going to take place is this? A certain amount of goods are sent out to Rumania, they are paid for at the exchange of to-day. The Government, instead of remitting that money to England, keeps it out in Rumania in the hope that the exchange will change. If so, that is nothing but a gamble in the exchange.

Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I know nothing about the actual way in which the Government is going to carry this into effect. I am speaking as one practically acquainted with the trade of a particular country the details of which I have known for the last 20 or 25 years. I have not been consulted by the Board of Trade. There have been a number of pour-parlers going on and there has been considerable discussion, and one would have thought that some Board of Trade officials might take the trouble to ask some of the people who know something about this country, but they have not. There is complete misapprehension in the minds of all the critics I have listened to as to what the scheme really is intended to do. In answer to my right hon. Friend's question, that is not the way it is to be done. The way in which it will be done is this. Supposing £5,000 or £10,000 worth of new ready made clothing or boots is sent out to Rumania next week, if the scheme is not as I describe it, it will be wanting in the best way of carrying out its purpose. In that opinion I may be egotistical. If I understand the scheme aright the Rumanian purchaser will give an acceptance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Money!"] He cannot give money. He will give an acceptance for the price of the goods. He has to pay freight, cash and insurance in this country. How is that acceptance to be met? The difficulties of the banks at the present moment is—and
I have been to some of the banks about it and know what I am talking about—is that they want to know how many times you will require that six months' Bill renewed. That is a question you cannot answer at the present time, and that is the reason why a considerable amount of business that might be done in this country to-day is not being done, because there is no possibility of stating definitely when the amount is going to be paid. If you could tell the bank that it was going to get its money after two or even three renewals, they might do business, but when you cannot give any estimate as to the date when the Bill is going to be met, then the bank will not do business. That is the reason why we are being asked to pass this Resolution, in order that there may be these credits and some security given to the banks that they will get their money.
It seems to me that this scheme is simply a repetition of the German system of advancing and supporting their trade which they adopted with success at least twelve or fourteen years before the War. The system was this. When their Consular Trade Agent in Rumania, for example, found that a British firm was supplying a certain class of goods to Rumania, information was transmitted to Berlin and an agent was sent down at once to try and sell German goods instead. He succeeded for the reason that the British manufacturer had to ask for cash, because his bank, in nine cases out of ten, would not discount an acceptance by a mere Rumanian purchaser of any goods. Therefore, he had to fix his price on the basis of cash payment. When the German agent could not undercut the British price, he cut it by giving credit on the acceptance of the Bill for the goods. That Bill was submitted to the local German Trade representative—similar to the Trade representatives which this Board of Trade Department are going to send overseas—and if he approved of it, it was discounted in Berlin by the Bankers' Committee for Overseas Trade, which consisted of the Dresdener Bank, the Deutsche Bank, and three or four others, and had behind it a guarantee of 75 per cent. of the amount of these Bills by the Government. The consequence was that in this perfectly simple way Germany cut us out of supplying Rumania with very nearly all
the iron and steel goods, and practically all the clothing and the boots and other things which could be made in Germany. In that way they succeeded in stealing our trade. This business is now open to be got by somebody. The business of supplying these Eastern nations, and particularly our Allies who helped in the War, with these goods, can be secured for the benefit of British manufacturers and for the benefit of British trade generally, and we ought to support this Motion as being one of the most intelligent Motions and one of the best ways of advancing British trade ever suggested to this House.
If this scheme is worked with discrimination and ability by those who are carrying it out, and if they will take the trouble of consulting some of the British people, some of their colleagues who know something about these countries, it will not cost the British Government one sixpence. These Bills represent British goods, and they will be paid for ultimately. They will require to be renewed probably for some few seasons until these places begin to produce again such commodities as wheat and oil, which are articles required all over the world. I do not think it will cost the British Government sixpence, because the Bills will be taken up and paid for ultimately. It is merely a question of establishing these series of credits in order to help British traders to secure markets which otherwise may go elsewhere. I have the greatest possible satisfaction in being permitted to say a few words in support of the Resolution.

Mr. KILEY: Can the representative of the Board of Trade clear up one point in his speech? He gave us to understand that the goods which were to be exported would be paid for before they are delivered. The hon. Member for Liverpool now says that they are not paid for, but that the receiver will give a Bill of acceptance, or a promise to pay.

Sir F. BANBURY: I should also like to call attention to that particular point. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool for his clear exposition of what will take place if we pass this Resolution. He has dealt with Rumania because he knows about Rumania. So far as Rumania is concerned, she was an Ally and, therefore.
on that account we should have no objection; but there is nothing in the Resolution limiting it to Rumania, and from the speeches that have been made it would appear that there are other places which would be equally favoured. The hon. Member for Liverpool says that Germany some years ago did this sort of thing with successful results to German trade. Does he forget that when Germany did that the exchange was normal? The exchange is not normal now. If the Government do what my hon. Friend says he understands they will do in regard to Rumania, and if after a certain number of months—possibly a year or two—there is a good harvest in Rumania, it is possible that the exchange may be righted, and that these Bills which the Discounts Department of the Board of Trade hold at the bank may be discounted at a better rate of exchange than now. Suppose there is a bad harvest—what will happen then? The exchange will go against the Government scheme and the result will be a very large loss. It must be remembered that these bills which are given against the goods do not represent goods, because the goods will have passed away. What you are going to do is to gamble on the exchange. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no! The bills are paid in sterling."] These bills will be merely pieces of paper, and if the exchange goes against this country one of two things must happen: either the Government will have to make a loss by taking payment at a lower exchange or the people will not be able to pay. Am I to understand that there will be, say, a bill for £1,000 in sterling, and that that bill will be drawn on somebody in Rumania? Supposing the exchange goes against this country, will that bill be met? [HON MEMBERS: "Yes."] They will not be able to meet it. I start upon the premise that there is not a good harvest.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Baronet must bear in mind that we shall have a Bill based on this Resolution, and it is not desirable, after the long discussion we have had, to go into questions which can be discussed when the Bill is brought in.

Sir F. BANBURY: I was only replying to hon. Members. I would not like it to be thought that I was not able to meet the argument. The Bill will have to be considered very carefully. This Debate
has shown that there are no two persons who agree as to the real object of the Resolution. Under these circumstances, as it is a novel departure, it will be necessary to view the Bill with very great care.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I think I am entitled to ask the representative of the Board of Trade whether he intends to reply?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the representative of the Board of Trade if he will be courteous enough to give a reply to the questions put to him, before we go to a Division? I asked whether these credits will be given to any country or only to the countries he mentioned—of which Rumania was one—when the Motion was introduced before we rose for the Easter Recess. Will these credits be given to any firm which satisfies the Government as to its standing or bona fides? I desire to know about Siberia, in which German and American firms are trading. Is this very beneficial advantage to be given to Siberia?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think that there is anything in the questions which have been raised which cannot be raised, and ought not to be raised, on the Bill when it comes before the House rather than on this Resolution. There is nothing in the Resolution to limit the application of this money to any particular country, and it will be open to Members, when they see the Bill, to move Amendments admitting or excluding any particular country, or in various ways altering the machinery of the measure. At present we are merely discussing whether we ought or ought not to vote this money for this general purpose.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If we pass this Resolution now, will it enable this money to be paid out? I understand that £290,000 have already been applied for or paid out. Will it be possible to pay the £26,000,000 if we pass this Resolution?

Mr. KILEY: I would also like a reply in reference to the statement of the hon. Gentleman that customers paid for the goods before they got them.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Regulations are in the "Board of Trade Journal," and if my hon: Friend will read them he will see that the point is made perfectly clear.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the granting of credits and the undertaking of insurances for the purpose of re-establishing overseas trade and the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any sums required for granting credits for such purpose up to an amount not exceeding at any time twenty-six million pounds and of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in connection with the granting of such credits and the undertaking of insurances so far as those expenses are not defrayed out of sums received by the Board by way of commission in respect of credits or by way of premiums in respect of insurances.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

TRAMWAYS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
In the year 1918 an Act was passed entitled the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, which enabled an increase of charges to be made by a number of statutory undertakings. In the case of tramways and light railways running upon public roads an extension of the powers of that Act has been found now to be necessary. By reason of matters which I will briefly explain, the financial position of the undertakings was such as to call for some relief. There are, I am informed, 263 of these undertakings in the country. Sixty-six of them, I think, are municipal undertakings. The rest are statutory companies. All of them are limited in charging powers, but in varying ways according to the special statutes under which they were constituted. The municipal undertakings show an estimated surplus of £73,650, without making any provision whatever for renewals, and the cost of renewals now is, at the lowest, three times what it was before the War. In addition to that there are certain arrears of renewals to be made good. Some of these tramway undertakings are already serious burdens upon the rates. There
are some 20 which, in the last financial year, have had rate subsidies. The most conspicuous of these have been the two boroughs of West Ham and East Ham. With, in the former case, a charge upon the rates of 9.85d. and in the latter 5.41d.
Private companies are no better. There is something like £15,500,000 capital invested in these companies, and the balance to meet all priority charges, such as debenture interest and preference stock and to provide for renewals, is estimated at £455,000. I ought to say that every one of those undertakings, municipal and company undertakings, are uncontrolled and in no way fettered by the Government. Quite recently there has been an agitation by the tramway workers for increased remuneration. That matter became a subject of discussion before the Industrial Council, which is commonly known as the Whitley Council, and they arrived at a unanimous conclusion that it was necessary that there should be an increase in the rate of pay given to the employés in those undertakings. But they were equally clear that it was impossible for that recommendation of the Council to become effective unless some power was given to increase the charging rights of these undertakings beyond those which are permitted by the Act of 1918. In those circumstances they approached my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport (Sir E. Geddes) and asked whether he would give his Parliamentary assistance to secure some extension of these charging powers, and that promise my right hon. Friend, after full inquiry, thought it wise to give, and it is that promise, which was ratified by the Cabinet, which we are here to ask the House to confirm.
There are certain methods by which these increases of charges could be brought into operation. The usual method is by means of private Bills. I do not think that anybody would say that in the case of 263 undertakings, many of which require this relief, it would be anything but a gross scandal and a waste of public time and money if each of them were required to promote a private Bill, even if they could get the necessary sanction to do it, as in the present Session of Parliament there would have to be special facilities given for that purpose. Another method would be by a general Act authorising all such undertakings to increase their maximum charges by certain percentages.
But a measure of that character is not called for. There are some undertakings, both municipal and companies, which will not be able on the figures, so far as we have them before us, to justify an increase above the maximum rates and charges. As to companies there was still a third method open. That was that the Minister of Transport should exercise the power vested in him by the Transport Act, and take possession of the companies, and then give them an award directing them to increase their actual charges.
There are three objections, both in principle and practice, to that method. In the first place it is not conceived to be desirable to extend controls more than is necessary and may wisely be done. In the second place, there is very great difficulty in arriving at what is the correct actual charge to make in the case of tramways, as distinguished from the maximum charge that may be made, by reason of the fact that you have point to point charges all over tramways, and an investigation of the correct fares between two given points over all the tramways in the country would be one of very great difficulty and perplexity. In addition that method would not apply to municipal tramways, which by the Transport Act are excluded from the purview of the Ministry of Transport. In these circumstances a very short Bill is before the House, and I propose in a few sentences to indicate the method which is to be adopted. By Clause 1 of the Bill the limitations to be found in the Act of 1918 are abrogated, so far as they may be referable to Orders made by the Minister under this Statute. By the 1918 Act undertakers who are a local authority were authorised to increase the maximum charge by not more than 50 per cent., provided that that was not more than sufficient to enable them to carry on their undertaking without loss. In other words, they could have no increase under that Statute—nor is it proposed that they should have under this Bill—which would do more than carry on the undertaking in a way which permits its solvency without contributing anything in relief of rates. As to companies, they were limited in their increase of charges to three-fourths of the pre-War rate of dividend or the standard which was the maximum rate of dividend. By this Bill those limitations are abolished,
and other methods are substituted which I hope will be satisfactory.
It is proposed that powers should be vested in the Ministry to relieve undertakings temporarily from onerous and un-remunerative provisions which hamper the working of these undertakings. There are in certain private Acts establishing these undertakings such provisions as those requiring that there shall be a certain frequency of service which in the events which have happened have turned out to be quite unnecessary. The Minister may make Orders authorising the necessary increase of charges by the municipalities, again with the same limitation that they shall not make a profit in relief of rates, and by companies such as may be; necessary to enable them to pay a reasonable return upon their capital, and for this purpose we have taken, I think, the exact words from the Resolution which was passed by the House in dealing with the London Underground railways as to a reasonable return upon capital. The Minister proposes by this Bill that he shall act upon the advice of advisory committees to be set up, which shall consist of the Light Railway Commissioners plus Members to be selected for the purpose from the advisory panel which is established under Section 23 of the Ministry of Transport Act. But inasmuch as the matter is quite urgent and some of these companies are in the greatest possible difficulty in meeting both their current obligations for renewals and the further liabilities coming upon them by reason of the recommendations of the Whitley Council, namely, that the men should be paid an immediate advance of 5s. a week to be followed by, I think, a further one shilling in June, it is desirable that the Minister should have power to act promptly
A considerable mass of statistics has already been obtained to enable him to do so. Therefore, the Bill proposes that he may make Interim Orders, which will not have validity for a period of more than six months, and that he shall forthwith, on the making of an Interim Order, refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for its consideration and report so that a more permanent Order may take its place. Then there is a provision for review, either at the instance of the Minister or at the request of the local authority or company concerned, or in
the case of municipal undertakings by twenty ratepayers. A further provision is that the cost of these inquiries which, it is hoped, will be quite light, by reason of the avoidance of quite large expenditure in the matter of professional witnesses and counsel and the like, shall be borne by the undertakings themselves. The reason for that is that they are relieved from the much more onerous burden of the cost of promoting a Private Bill in Parliament. Another provision is to limit the duration of the Bill to exactly the same period as that to which the House has limited the powers of the Minister with reference to railway authorities, namely, during the two years of control which is sanctioned by the statute, the Ministry of Transport Act, plus eighteen months. Therefore, there is a time limit to the Bill of 15th February, 1923. In the meantime the companies and the municipalities will have gained experience and they will be able to say whether it is necessary for them to make any further application to Parliament, either privately or by public Bill.

Sir H. NIELD: Does the hon. Member distinguish at all between municipal tramways and private tramways under the Tramway Acts and light railways constructed under the Light Railways Act?

Mr. NEAL: No; under the Act of 1918 light railways which have the character of tramways, that is to say which run along the public roads, are included. It is intended that they shall be included in this Act also. Unless some such measure as this receives the approval of the House there would be a very serious position created for the tramway undertakings of the country, both municipal and company owned. They would not be able in many cases to meet what has been ascertained to be the just demand of the workers for greater remuneration; they would not be able to deal with the obvious necessity of keeping their tracks in such a condition as is consistent with public safety and convenience or of maintaining their undertaking in the way that is essential if the public are to have that service of transport which is increasingly necessary as people are being asked to live further and further from the place where they work.

Colonel - WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the word "now" and at the
end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."
I will put the case against the Bill. Under the Bill tramway fares will be increased by every private company throughout Great Britain. The Bill does not affect municipal tramways. Under the 1918 Bill a concession made to municipal tramways was very nearly identical with the concessions made in this Bill, except so far as regards East Ham and West Ham. The Independent Labour Party, for whom I speak, would regard it as an impertinence if the Government of the country interfered in any way with the charges made by the municipalities for the use of their own tramways. They think that that is a matter to be decided by the locality, and not by a central power. It is the 180 or more private tramway companies which stand to benefit under this Bill. In every one of those companies the fares will be raised. The reason given by the hon. Gentleman for the necessity of increasing fares is that unless the fares are raised the private statutory companies will not be able to carry on their businesses. Let us first make up our minds what is our position relative to these statutory companies from the point of view of justice. Each of these statutory companies made a bargain with the State. Under the terms of that bargain they were entitled to a certain franchise—the right to make tramways. Owing to the War, the bargain has turned out to be unsatisfactory to the private companies. Suppose that the bargain had gone the other way, that it had turned out more satisfactory to the private companies than to the public. Should we then have had a Bill introduced to give the public more advantageous terms than those which the original bargain secured to them? We should have been told that it was monstrously unjust to alter the terms of a bargain made between the Government and a private company, that the country had entered into a bargain, and that whether the public gained or lost by it, they would have to stick to it. Now we have the reverse side of the shield. Immediately, as in 1918, the Government, which looks with almost tender care after the interests of these statutory companies, and, indeed, after all vested interests, come forward with proposals to break the bargain made, inasmuch as it has proved disadvantageous for private enterprise.
That seems to me to be a wrong way of dealing with these things. Whenever private enterprise gets into a corner it comes to the Coalition Government and says, "We are being hard pressed, alter the bargain." But, says the hon. Member, "We must remember that wages are going up, and if you do not allow the companies to increase the wages the companies will go bankrupt and be unable to pay their way." That leaves me cold. Many people have entered into bargains with public authorities, for instance, to do certain work, and they have found that the contract did not pay them, but they stuck to those contracts. Let these people stick to their contract too. They would be sold up. They would be bought up by the municipalities and the county councils at a fair market price. The Government and Members of this House ask that when the municipalities or the county councils buy up these tramway concerns they shall pay, not the fair price at which the bargain was originally made, but one enormously increased by the passage of this Bill. An immediate result of the Second Beading of this Bill would be that the shares of all the companies concerned would rise. If this Bill was defeated to-day those shares would drop to-morrow. When the Bill is passed by a triumphant majority all the shares will rise. We saw that happen in 1918 in the case of the water companies and the gas companies. The very introduction of the 1918 Bill by the Government immediately sent up prices on the Stock Exchange. I remember Mr. John Burns calling special attention to the matter and quoting the figures. We are deliberately, by an Act of Parliament, giving to certain franchises in this country a value they did not possess, and would not possess if this Bill were not passed. The whole of politics, as far as I can see, and I have been in the House fifteen years, is one long struggle between the public interest and the vested interests. The vested interests can employ people in the Lobby here and can circularise every Member in the House. The public interest is no one's interest. There is no one to circularise them or to put them on the qui vive. We must try to divest our minds of any desire to benefit vested interests. The public interest is that the bargain entered into by these companies should be carried out to the letter.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.0 P.M.

Sir H. NIELD: The speech to which we have just listened is self-condemned as most unreasonable, having regard to recognised facts which have been forced upon the whole world by reason of a cataclysm which has never been known before. I should like my hon. and gallant Friend to tell me what he would have happen in a case I will put. It is a case where a county council, realising its opportunities under the Light Railways Act, not being a tramway authority under the Act of 1870, proceeds to promote Orders and to get Orders from the Light Railway Commissioners, to establish a very large network of tramways throughout its area, makes a track, keeping complete control over the substance or disturbance of the road, doing the widening and everything necessary for the purpose, and then under advantageous terms leases to a company to provide the equipment and the rolling stock, taking therefor a preferential rate of interest on the county council's outgoings and then sharing the profits after giving an interest of 6 per cent., to include sinking fund, in respect of the expenditure of the company and in respect of wasting assets, such as rolling stock and equipment. Apparently, from the observations of the hon. and gallant Member, that very reasonable deed whereby the losses to the county ratepayer are minimised, whereby the county has the right to prevent an alteration of fares without the county's assent and to see that the cars are properly run, kept clean, and so forth, is not to be regarded as an ideal bargain. What would be the result if the hon. Member had his way? An enormous number of employés have their wages raised. How in the world are the companies or the municipalities to meet those obligations unless it is by increasing the fares? I do not know what my hon. Friend means by talking about these companies becoming insolvent and then that the municipalities will be able to buy them on advantageous terms. What more advantageous terms can they get than those already given to them by the Tramways Act of 1870, whereby they can buy the whole thing at the price of old metal? That is a provision which I am perfectly sure was never contemplated as giving a public authority the right to buy
a going concern at a break-up price. But the municipalities get that power under the present law, and what more does the hon. Gentleman want? It seems to me that my hon. Friend's passing over from his old party allegiance to that of the Independent Labour party is not likely to inspire either one section of the community or the other. One would want to have a more definite idea and a more workable idea, and a somewhat less purely revolutionary idea, of the treatment of contracts than that which he offers. As one who is very interested in this question of transport in relation to tramways, I venture to think that this Bill is an absolute necessity. I can hardly believe that the hon. Member is serious when he suggests that these tramway concerns should be brought to an end, for that is what it would mean. The result would be that in many districts the tramways would cease, and the public would be unable to get from point to point, and theirs would be the grievance. The debenture holders in the case of a private company would come in and get a receiver appointed, and unless there was an Act passed for the purpose, there would be no power to compel the receiver to run the trams at a loss. I am speaking of the large number of private concerns run in the provinces.
The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill referred to one object, namely, getting rid of onerous conditions. I should like to see that part of the Bill in operation. I can give an instance where an onerous condition should be got rid of but cannot be got rid of under this Bill. The hon. Member who looks after the interests of the London County Council is not present at the moment, but I cannot refrain from utilising the opportunity to ask the Minister in charge to consider whether a condition which imposes an exorbitant and outrageous rent by the London County Council upon the Middlesex County Council for half a mile of tramway connection between the Archway Tavern and country boundary is one of those oppressive conditions which ought to be got rid of. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks so I shall hail the Bill. A more iniquitous thing than to impose a rent of that sort upon a helpless county council which must make this connection to get into the London system is difficult to
imagine. On the whole, it seems to me that the Government have no alternative in order to do justice to the workmen and at the same time to those who have provided these trams, but to introduce this Bill. Those people who have provided the trams have done so, I venture to say, at a very low rate of interest. I have not a single share or any interest in tramway companies. I am interested in county tramways. I would like to ask any hon. Member who has the material to investigate the dividends paid by tramway companies upon their shares for the last twenty-five years, and on inquiry I think it will be agreed that the remuneration received by the shareholders is neither outrageous nor excessive. When we remember the extra charge of five shillings per week to be paid at once and another shilling in June it is impossible to suppose that these concerns can do so without the provisions of this Bill. I think it is a bare act of justice, notwithstanding the extravagance of hon. Gentlemen who have just departed from this House to go into my own Division to make an Independent Labour party speech there, though I am quite sure the hon. Member who makes it will get no change in doing so in that Division.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has, I think, misinterpreted everything said by the hon. Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) who pointed out that this Bill was introduced to bolster up private enterprise. He drew a distincton between the municipal tramways and those owned by private enterprise, because in the case of the municipal tramways you get the cost back in the rates, and what you lose on the roundabouts you get back on the swings. So far as private enterprise is concerned, if you are going to allow increased fares for the purpose of paying extra wages or extra burdens imposed on them I do not believe a single Member on this side will oppose. But the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme pointed out that what he was afraid of was that you were going to allow these private enterprises to pay extra dividends, and as a result when the shares were put on the gambling exchange they would go up. Thus, if I purchased a £1 share in a private company and put it on the market and it increased to £2, and if I was getting 5 per cent. on £1 it would mean that I would be getting 10 per cent.
There is no one on this side going to oppose this Bill in so far as it proposes to meet increased charges for the workmen. That is occurring in every industry in the country and these men have to get the same privilege as the workmen employed in other industries. If the Minister of Transport will give an undertaking that this is only to meet increased charges of this kind or increased prices of rolling stock or anything of that nature we will not oppose it, but if it is going to mean extra dividends for private enterprises, then we shall go into the Lobby against it.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I regret very much I am not able to agree with all that fell from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), but I think we are entitled to resist the Bill until we have some more information. There is at least one principle about the Bill which many of us in existing circumstances would support. I think the general provision for an increased charge is satisfactory when compared with the private Bill or Provisional Order for increased charges. Here we have a general Statute which gives what is apparently a general power, and to that extent I think it marks a very real advance on the individual effort to secure a concession of the kind, which is true of other lines of public activity. The point to which I wish specially to direct attention is with regard to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) Clause 1. That Sub-section deals with the position of the local authority and covers, as I understand, all municipal tramway undertakings. Under the 1918 Act it was provided as regards municipal enterprise in trams that there might be a 50 per cent. increase in the charges. This Sub-section is to the effect that such increased charges should be imposed by them as will enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss, and that, according to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, excludes anything which might be paid to the relief of rates. I do not quarrel with that in the least. No controversy was more productive of heat in the past, and my own view was that we should always supply the service at the lowest possible charge rather than try and earn money to subsidise the rate of the locality. That is now excluded, but I notice in the Clause which applies to municipal authorities there is no reference
to prospective development, whereas there is a definite reference to prospective development where the companies are concerned. I am hopeful we may have some explanation that there is something in the finance of these tramway undertakings which meets this point. At the moment, many of the municipal authorities are embarking on great extensions. In Edinburgh, for instance, they are about to embark on an entirely new system. What is the position as to this First Sub-section to cover developments where municipal authorities are concerned? The second paragraph deals with the provision in the case of private enterprises, of interest on loan capital and a reasonable return on share capital, regard being had to prospective development. An attack on this Bill would I think be much better directed to some limitation of the returns to those private undertakings on the capital invested in them.
Here we are dealing with what is in every area substantially a monopoly. These companies have got powers, and so far they are removed from competition, and I think it is not unreasonable to ask that we should substitute for what may be regarded as a reasonable return on capital something which would be in effect a limited return on capital, without being in any way unfair. A good deal of the objection to this Bill on the part of the working classes will undoubtedly turn on what seems to be a very vague and far-reaching power given to the Minister of Transport. I gather that the power with which he is entrusted to increase the charges up to 100 per cent. is an interim power. It would seem to indicate that if that is an interim restriction up to 100 per cent., it is possible that a reasonable return on share capital may land us in charges which will be very much greater than the charges in force now. I think we should have some explanation from the Minister of Transport as to how these Advisory Committees are to proceed in fixing this so-called reasonable return. I know that in most of these things we have the return which is given to capital invested in similar or kindred enterprises throughout the country, but, very largely because of war conditions, the return is artificially greater to-day and probably will be for some years than it was in pre-war times, or even during
the course of the War itself, and I venture to suggest that the people of the country, having granted a monopoly to these companies in these areas, are entitled to be protected against that inflated charge in a Bill of this kind.

Major BARNES: I think it is clear that the general principle of the Bill is going to be met with little or no opposition. There must be increases in fares to cover the increases in costs. But we are really entering upon a very important situation in dealing with this Bill, because it raises a very much larger question than is covered by the actual scope of the Bill itself. We are dealing here with tramway undertakings merely, but this Bill itself is based upon a precedent set up by the financial Resolutions under which the London Railway Bill was brought in. That was the first move in the direction of legalising increases in the charges for transport facilities. We have the term," a reasonable return on share capital," which arose in connection with that Resolution, and the action which the House takes on this Bill will be the precedent upon which it will be asked to act later on in other cases. It is therefore a matter of considerable importance. I agree with the principle of the Bill that charges must be increased, but I want to ask the Minister of Transport one or two questions of general interest. In the memorandum to the Bill there is, I think, a clerical error. It says, in Section (b), that in the case of companies the charges cannot be increased by more than the amount sufficient to enable them to pay dividends on ordinary capital at a rate exceeding three-quarters of the pre-war rate of dividend. I think the word "not" has been left out.

Mr. NEAL indicated dissent.

Major BARNES: What will govern the charges, amongst other things, will be the consideration of what is a reasonable return on share capital, regard being had to the pre-war financial condition of the company and its prospective development. That opens up the whole question of the value of the company. What figure, in deciding what is a reasonable return on share capital, is the share capital to be taken at? Is it to be taken at its face value or at the value at which it was quoted on the Stock Exchange prior to
the War, say, on the 3rd August, 1914, or is the share capital to be taken on a present-day valuation of the undertaking? It is obvious that every undertaking which is worth anything at all is worth more to-day than it was before the War. That is really the vital question on this Bill, though perhaps it is a Committee point; but I think it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some information as to whether the share capital of an undertaking is to be based on pre-War or post-War value. In regard to the term "reasonable return," it seems to some of us that it would be better if a fixed return was substituted. The Minister of Transport is getting considerable powers under this Bill, and as experience has already shown him that he is not likely to get those powers without a good deal of scrutiny in Committee, I think if he would give the House at this point some information on this exceedingly important question of the capital valuation, it would lighten his task considerably.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir E. Geddes): I must thank the House for the way in which this necessary, but rather unpleasant, request for power has been received. I would like to refer to what the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said. He said in effect that this was a Bill to enable private companies to be placed in a much more healthy condition financially, that it was a Bill brought forward after pressure from vested interests, and that it was to increase the value of the properties so that the proprietors might benefit thereby. There is no foundation whatever for that. This Bill was brought forward after one meeting only with the Ministry of Transport. The meeting was a Whitley Council, which consisted of employés' representatives, of company representatives, and of municipal representatives, and unanimously they came and said that after full investigation they had come to the conclusion that the men working on these lines must have higher wages and that, generally speaking, none of the undertakings, municipal or company-owned, could stand the additional burden. There was no question of the vested interests lobbying or making representations, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested. Further, the request comes from the representatives of 169 public authority-owned undertakings and 94
companies. It is mainly public authorities who have asked for this, and not companies. Further, any question of permanently increasing the charging powers of these undertakings is, I think, negatived by the fact that whatever powers the House chooses to give to any authority lapse at the end of eighteen months from August next—I think it is in February, 1923. It is a temporary provision, and simply in order to fix a date we take the same time that the similar provision lapses for railway charges. That was fixed at a time in order to enable the railways to promote, if they wished, private Bills to increase their charging powers, and then is the time for this House, in dealing with these private Bills, to exercise the control which it ought to exercise, and to revise the bargain in a fair way.
With a great deal of what the hon. and gallant Member said in regard to bargains I agree. I admit that the State gave certain powers in return for certain obligations, and that bargains should be revised both ways, and when these temporary bargains come to an end, it is then that we ought to deal with the relationships and the bargains which these undertakings may make to the State. One hon. Gentleman said why not let the things go on as they are. Obviously, they cannot. If they cannot get the money to pay the wages, they will come to a standstill; the workers will go on strike, because they cannot get the standard which has been agreed by the Whitley Council as necessary, and that is the reason why this emergency arrangement has to be come to. As my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, explained, the matter is one of some urgency, and therefore immediate and temporary powers have been sought, for six months only, to increase temporarily the charging powers of these undertakings up to a figure not exceeding 100 per cent. of their existing powers. That power is exercised by the Minister of Transport on their application in every case, and he has to refer the thing at once to the Advisory Committee. Apart from that, it is only upon the application of the authority—and no one will interfere with them if they do not apply—that this matter comes up at all. As to the points which were raised by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh and the
hon. Member for Newcastle as to what a reasonable return was, and whether it was on the nominal capital or on what share capital, I should very much regret if I had at this stage to interpret that. We took the wording which, for better or for worse—I think it was inevitable—the House adopted in dealing with the Bill put forward by the London Combine, that a reasonable return on capital was a reasonable provision. We have added to that something, which I thought was a safeguard, that regard should be had to the pre-war return upon the capital. I put that in because I did not wish to let it go from this House—if the House gives the powers—that the reasonable return should be taken on general lines, regardless of the pre-War return on capital and regardless of the pre-War financial position of the company.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Have you any method of ascertaining whether the value of the shares has gone up since 1918?

Sir E. GEDDES: Certainly. I could ascertain what the value of the shares would be in a great many cases, but that would be a matter for the Advisory Committee to go into. For that purpose the Advisory Committee is put in, and we will give, as we have already given, the best accountancy advice we can possibly get. It is intended to have a very exhaustive inquiry—and we are on it already—into each case.

Major BARNES: The point I want to get at is this: A tramway undertaking might make a revaluation of its concern and issue bonus shares and double its capital. Would that doubled capital be capital upon which a reasonable return would be made, or would it be its value before the war?

Sir E. GEDDES: I cannot imagine that any Advisory Committee would be so foolish, and so lacking in judgment, as to adopt that sort of valuation, but if these matters offer any real difficulty, when we come to consider them upstairs in Committee the Government is most anxious to meet those points. There is not the least intention of putting these undertakings into any better position until they come forward with private Bills. I attach the greatest importance to one of the points which the hon. Member for Newcastle brought forward, and that is
the bargain with the State. I am glad he mentioned that. There is a bargain with the State, and if the undertakers come forward—be they railways or tramways—and say, "We want one side of the bargain altered," I want the other side altered also. It is not that the Ministry of Transport want these increased powers, but we have got to do something. The points which my hon. Friends raised we will endeavour to meet in Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

HOUSE LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill is one which, on the face of it, appears to be rather obscure, but in reality it is quite simple. The main purpose of the measure is to remedy a grievance which has arisen in Scotland under the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts, as they apply to small dwelling-houses which fall within the scope of the House-Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911. Under that Act the owner of a small dwelling-house which is let to a tenant is responsible to the various rating authorities for the portion of the local rates which is imposed upon that tenant. The theory of the Act is that the owner can reimburse himself by collecting the rates from the tenant along with, and as part of, the rent which he pays. Now the local rates in Scotland are struck annually—very often after a considerable portion of the assessment year (which is from the 15th May to the 15th May) has run—generally about four or five months after. Under the Act of 1911 that created no real difficulty, because owners could adjust the rent which they imposed in the latter half of the year in order to compensate themselves for any rise in the rates before those rates were struck. Under the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts, however,
owners are only entitled to make an addition to the standard rent on the ground of increase in the occupier's rates after the rates have been struck for the year, and the increase cannot be retrospective so as to cover the portion of the assessment year which has already run. Accordingly, the present position is this, that where the occupiers rates have risen in any year, the owners, while remaining responsible to the Rating Authorities for the rates for the full year at the increased figure, are disabled by Statute from collecting the increase from the tenant during the earlier portion of the year. I am free to admit that this difficulty has arisen through inadvertence. I do not think the position of Scotland in this matter, and, in particular, the operation of the Act of 1911, was fully appreciated when the Rent Restriction Acts were passing through this House; but now the grievance has become very acute because, owing to the large increase in the rates for the present year 1919–20, as compared with the previous year, the burden laid upon the owners of these small dwelling-houses is a very serious and a very large one. I am told that in Glasgow alone the amount involved is estimated at £100,000. That is to say, that is the amount which the owners of these small dwelling-houses are called upon to pay in the name of occupier's rates, and which, under the existing law, they are disabled from recovering from the tenant.

Clause 1 of the Bill is designed to effect a remedy for this manifest injustice, which was not contemplated when the Rent Restriction Acts were passed, and under the provision of the first Sub-section any unrecovered increase in the Occupier's Rates proportionate to the period of his occupancy is made a lawful addition to his rent, and can be recovered from the occupier in the way of arrears of rent. That is the only effect of Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 2 deals with an entirely different matter. It proceeds on the lines of what is known as the Statement of Rates Act, 1919, which passed through this House and applies to England only. Representations have, however, been made to me on behalf of occupiers of small houses that a provision such as that contained in Clause 2 of the Bill would be a valuable safeguard to those occupiers against the exaction by owners from them of additions to rent which are beyond
those authorised by law. Accordingly, Clause 2 really applies to Scottish conditions the provisions of that Act of 1919. The third Clause is a penalty Clause, and deals with false statements and undue exactions if those statements are made or those exactions are attempted, and imposes a substantial penalty on those who make false statements or endeavour to obtain undue exactions. Such, in very short compass, is the purpose and effect of this measure which, put it to the House, will remedy what is a manifest injustice under which owners of small houses are suffering to-day, and, in these circumstances, I would respectfully invite the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I desire, in the first place, to express what I am sure are the thanks of the Scottish Members to my right hon. Friend for his explanation of this Bill, and to say at once that we meet it in no spirit of hostility, but with a wish to assist its passage into law. As a matter of fact, I think we have all recognised that it meets a difficulty of an unexpected character which arose, and which, if not met would inflict an injustice upon the owners of house property in Scotland. The two points which I desire to put very briefly have been raised by owners of house property in large communities, particularly in Edinburgh and also in other parts of the country. The first representation refers to the proviso of Clause I which deals with a claim which is irrecoverable, and a declaration to the effect that every lawful endeavour has been made to recover the amount claimed. House proprietors point out that, as regards ordinary borough rates in Edinburgh and elsewhere, there may be no great difficulty, but they suggest that it is rather different with the Education and Poor Rates, statutes with regard to which are more strictly interpreted, and it might be held that the amount was not recoverable unless a decree of the court or "diligence" as it is called, has been granted. They argue that a restriction of that kind in a Bill is somewhat drastic, and I hope it may be considered in Committee.
The other part is very much more important, and I think I am correct in saying that all Scottish tenants will welcome Clause 2, which clearly provides for a statement as to the amount of the assessment when the rent is demanded. A very
great deal of unrest under the House Letting Acts in Scotland has arisen from the fact that, rightly or wrongly, there has been a widespread impression amongst the smaller tenants that, under the guise of increased assessments, they will be charged increased rents, and in poorer quarters that view is very widely and strongly held. House proprietors draw attention to a flaw or weakness in this clause. They say that, as regards annual or half-yearly notices, or even shorter periods, they have no particular objection to the statement of the amount of assessment applicable for the period for which the rent is requested. But when we get down to monthly lets, and very short periods like that, they argue that it is going to involve a great deal of clerical labour, and that it might be modified in some way to meet that difficulty. On that point I should like to say that personally I have no strong sympathy, but I simply present the case which has been put to me by many small proprietors of house property, some of whom are not so distantly removed from the Labour movement as we perhaps imagine. With that somewhat trifling criticism I desire most cordially to support the right hon. Gentleman, and to say that when this Bill gets to Committee we shall endeavour, not certainly to oppose it, but to improve it in any way we possibly can.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Very few words are necessary at this stage. It will be within the knowledge of the House that under the existing Acts of Parliament the amounts that may be invested in savings banks are very strictly limited. The deposits have always been limited £50 in any one year, and to a total sum of £200. In the same way in respect to investments in Government stock the limit hitherto has been £200 worth in any one year, with a total limit of £500 value. During the War there was a Regulation made which
removed the limit in respect to deposits. The Regulation ceases to have effect within six months after the end of the War. The purpose of this Bill is to withdraw all restrictions made in the Act which now governs savings banks and trustees savings banks in respect to the limits applicable to depositors and holders of stock. There has been such an increase throughout the country in the demands made upon the savings of thrifty people that I am sure the House will unanimously wish to support this Bill in regard to the matter dealt with in the first Clause.

Clause 2 makes provision to increase the allowance given to saving banks for their management. They have suffered in common with all other institutions owing to the increased cost of management, increased salaries, wages, and so forth, and this Clause is designed to meet the difficulty in which these banks find themselves. Clauses 3 to 6 deal with sundry Regulations which require bringing up to date, and which may very well be discussed and examined in Committee upstairs. They chiefly concern the Regulations of the Post Office Savings Bank. The matter has engaged the attention of the Postmaster-General, and such Amendments as the postal authorities feel to be desirable are here embodied. Clause 7 perhaps deserves a moment's notice, because in this Clause it is proposed to change the name of the War Savings Certificates to that of National Savings Certificates. There has been no movement during the War in this country which has met with greater success, or has done more good, than the movement for the purchase of War Savings Certificates. All those connected with that movement are most desirous that it should be continued in time of peace: that it should go on for the good of the country as it did in time of war. But it is obvious that the name is now out of date, and it is by the desire of those who are interested in this great movement that we propose to change the name, and propose that all legislation applicable to War Savings Certificates shall be applicable to certificates under the new name in the future. Clause 8 deals with the simplification of the transfer of the estates of deceased persons. I fancy that the House will agree that this is a Bill which should
have a Second Reading. It contains no contentious matter that can arise on Second Reading, but it may well be carefully examined when it comes to Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I desire to welcome this Bill which seems admirable in every way. In respect to Clause 7 I suppose we may assume that it is now the fixed policy of the Government to continue the issue of these National Savings Certificates and to encourage thrift in the very practical and successful way that has been adopted so far. There is one question I should like to ask. Clause 2, if I read it aright, tells us that money deposited in the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland by trustees of savings banks only receives an annual interest from the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland at a rate of not less than of £2 15s. per centum per annum, and not exceeding £2 17s. 6d. per centum per annum. The rate was fixed in 1888. At the present moment, as we all know, money is very dear—I mean in the way of the high rate of interest that a borrower has to pay to the bank on an overdraft of a loan—and it seems to me that the interest here proposed is rather too low. It would surely be more just to the poor people, who are mostly people of limited means, and who put their money into savings banks of this sort, that they should get a greater interest for it. The bank rate to-day is, I believe, 7 per cent., and there is talk of it going higher. Why, then, should depositors not be allowed more than the proposal suggests? A little explanation seems desirable from the Government. I hope it is not the case, but it seems to me that savings banks are being rather ungenerously treated by the Government in this matter by Act of Parliament. Perhaps this matter is one for Committee, but I wish it had been convenient for the hon. Gentleman to give us some explanation now. We all wish to encourage thrift, which is about the only hope of practically every country in the world to-day. Why should it not be encouraged by giving a rather higher rate of interest than suggested for the poor man's savings?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The object with which this Bill is introduced is to provide a permanent organisation for the management of the Imperial War Museum. The House will recollect that in March, 1917, the Government authorised me to form a committee which has been occupied since then in collecting the materials to form an Imperial War Museum. The work of that committee is drawing to a close. The Imperial War Museum Committee, the body to which I refer, has no legal status, and it has therefore become necessary formally to provide an organisation legally incorporated, with a Board of Trustees, to take charge of this valuable and unique collection and to provide for its future management and custody. The Bill follows the ordinary lines of the enactments under which our national collections are governed, and presents no point of novelty. The Board of Trustees set forth in the Schedule of the Bill is to consist of a President, and 24 Other members, of whom 17 shall be appointed members, with 7 ex-officio members. Of the appointed members, 11 shall be persons appointed by the Treasury. It is the intention to ask a number of distinguished soldiers, sailors and airmen who have taken a great and noble part in the War, and who in their relative positions of command have interested themselves in forming the collection to consent to become trustees. One person shall be appointed by the Admiralty, one by the War Office, and one by the Secretary for the Colonies; one for India, one by the Board of Education, and one by the Secretary of State for Air. The ex-officio members will include the High Commissioners for the Dominions. I am pleased to be able to state that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has graciously consented to be the First President of the Board. I think that is really all I need say about the Bill, the object of which is machinery. It may interest hon. Members to know that we hope early in June to open the Museum in
its temporary home at the Crystal Palace, when Members of this House and the public generally will be able to see the result of the labours of the Committee, the sub-committees and the various commanding officers at the front who, during the last three years, have interested themselves in forming this collection.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the different collections in the country come under the jurisdiction of these trustees?

Sir A. MOND: The various war relics throughout the country have been allocated to the care of the various local authorities. These trustees will only be concerned with the collection in the Museum itself.

8.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am afraid I shall have to oppose this Bill. My opposition, I admit, is somewhat placated by the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill. If it had been introduced by the Minister of War, I would have been even more opposed to it, but the right hon. Gentleman's manner, and I am sure his whole character, suggests that he is essentially peace-loving and pacific. The Bill is, however, thoroughly mischievous. Let me begin by stating that I have been a subscriber to the United Services Institute. That institute, in addition to other services, has made a very valuable collection of weapons of past wars and of some of the relics and curios which this Bill is designed to placed under the charge of this new-fangled Board of Trustees. For the small charge of 6d. anyone can go into our club house in Whitehall and sec our very interesting collection of some thousands of relics and war trophies, got together by various Service members who interested themselves in it. That, apparently, is not good enough for the Government, and in March, 1917, they saw a chance of creating a new bureaucracy with a few snug billets in it, with lady typists and the rest of it, at our expense, and also a chance for giving some pleasant and congenial employment to certain distinguished generals and admirals, to whom the right hon. Gentleman paid the usual tributes. Doubtless they are very gallant
officers, and no doubt very nice posts will be held by them. From their point of view, and the point of view of their immediate friends and relations, of course, that is very desirable, but apart from that, I object to this war museum because now we want to let people forget about the War. I make that statement quite seriously. We want the glamour and ceremony of war out of the minds of the people of this country, especially the younger generation.
Here under this Measure you will have this Department of a modern business Government. School treats will be taken to this museum, and they will see the interesting curios of this last terrible war. Their minds will be filled with it, and not with the ideas of peace. I wish to enter a protest against the appointment of His Royal Highness as President of the Board. I know that His Royal Highness has very graciously accepted this position, and I would much rather that he had become a Prince of Peace and not a Prince of War. I would much rather hear of His Royal Highness accepting some post in connection with the League of Nations and not accepting the Presidency of the Board of Trustees for the Imperial War Museum. On this matter I am speaking for a number of people in the country who have not failed in their duty in the last few months, and if we had our way every vestige, trace, trophy, and relic of the late War would be destroyed. We would take every obsolete warship we could get hold of, and if we could have an international arrangement, we would take every modern warship and sink them in deep water, and destroy every gun, hand grenade, poisoned gas cylinder, and bomb thrower and other devices of the devil invented for warfare.
We should forbid our children to have anything to do with the pomp and glamour and the bestiality of the late War, which has led to the death of millions of men. I refuse to vote a penny of public money to commemorate such suicidal madness of civilisation as that which was shown in the late War. I do not know what this proposal under the Bill will cost. It may be only just a trifle, just a few thousand pounds to add to the millions we have spent, but the price will be paid by anything of this nature which perpetrates the
war spirit, which befools the young into thinking there is something grand and heroic in the international struggle between nations. Anything of that sort is a price too high to pay, and for these reasons I shall vote against this Bill. If I only lead a few Members into the Lobby, I feel it is my duty to raise this protest against a policy which has led to war in the past, in which the youth of the country have paid the penalty and the old men have profited.

Mr. MYERS: I oppose this Measure because I do not think it is necessary to set up another public department such as is provided for under this Bill. I think it is quite undesirable in these days to perpetuate the remembrance of war. A collection of the relics of warfare is altogether undesirable. The effect upon the young mind is such that we are going to familiarise them with all the barbarism of warfare when we ought to be proclaiming the virtues of peace. In various parts of the country the public have protested against having sent to them some of the war relics in the shape of tanks and German guns, and in my own experience I know definite protests have been made against these implements of warfare being put in public places in various parts of the country. My view is that the general public desire to forget as much as possible the facts of the War. It is quite sufficient for the general public to remember that over 800,000 British soldiers have fallen in the conflict, and that of itself is quite sufficient recollection for the various families in different parts of the country whose members have paid the penalty and rendered their tribute in that direction. There is no public demand for a museum of this character. If a plebiscite of the public were to be taken I am sure this museum would not be brought into existence at all. There is no justification for setting up an institution of this character. It does interpret the public mind and they do not want it, and I am sure the public would not have it if they had an opportunity of vetoing the proposal. Upon those grounds I associate myself with the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, and if he goes to a Division he will find at least one other hon. Member with him.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 14

Division No. 78.]
AYES.
[8.10 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)


Baird, John Lawrence
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Parker, James


Baldwin, Stanley
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hood, Joseph
Perkins, Walter Frank


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Howard, Major S. G.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Purchase, H. G.


Bonnett, Thomas Jewell
Hurd, Percy A.
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Illing worth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Rankin, Captain James S.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Jesson, C.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnson, L. S.
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Royden, Sir Thomas


Bridgeman, William Clive
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Bruton, Sir James
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Kenyon, Barnet
Simm, M. T.


Campbell, J. D. G.
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Chadwick, R. Burton
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sugden, W. H.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lloyd-Greame, Major P.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Waddington, R.


Edge, Captain William
Macmaster, Donald
Wallace, J.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Mallalieu, F. W.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Waring, Major Walter


Forestier-Walker, L.
Morison, Thomas Brash
Wignall, James


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Morris, Richard
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Winterton, Major Earl


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Neal, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hancock, John George
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.





NOES.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cairns, John
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Waterson, A. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Sitch, Charles H.



Finney, Samuel
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E.
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and Mr. Myers.


MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES (CAPITAL ISSUES) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—Powers under provisions of special Acts and Orders as to capital issues.

(1) Where a company are authorised by special Act to raise capital by the issue of stock or the borrowing of money for the purpose of carrying on any gas or water undertaking, or where the powers of a company to raise capital or borrow money for the purpose of carrying on such an undertaking are limited by the special Act, the company may, if they think fit, not with standing anything in the special Act, with the consent of the Board of Trade, which consent may be given subject to such terms and conditions as appear to the Board to be expedient—

(a) offer for sale to the public any such stock and at a price lower than the nominal amount of the stock;
1470
(b) where the special Act authorises the creation and issue of ordinary stock, create and issue redeemable or irredeemable preference stock in lieu thereof;
(c) where the special Act authorises the creation and issue of irredeemable preference or debenture stock, create and issue redeemable preference or debenture stock;
(d) where the special Act authorises the creation and issue of debenture stock or the borrowing of money to a limited extent, create and issue debenture stock or borrow money to an extent not exceeding half the share capital for the time being issued and paid up;
(e) pay a higher rate of dividend or interest on preference stock or debenture stock or money borrowed than that authorised by the special Act:

Provided that—

(i) preference stock, whether redeemable or otherwise, shall not be issued under the authority of this Act to a greater extent than shall be sufficient to produce,
1471
including any premium which may be obtained on the sale thereof, an amount equal to the nominal amount of the stock authorised or the amount authorised to be raised by the special Act; and
(ii) no consent given by the Board of Trade in pursuance of this Act shall have effect until a report of the circumstances of the case has been presented to Parliament by the Board of Trade and has lain upon the Table of each House of Parliament for a period of not less than twenty-one days during which the House has sat, and if either House during that period presents an Address to His Majesty praying that consent may be withheld, no such consent shall be given; and
(iii) the provisions contained in the Schedule to this Act shall apply in respect of redeemable preference or debenture stock issued in pursuance of this Act; and
(iv) preference stock issued under the authority of this Act shall not affect any preference or priority as to the payment of dividends or capital enjoyed by any preference stock existing at the date of such issue, except with the sanction of three-fourths of the votes of the holders of that stock present (personally or by proxy) at a meeting of those stockholders specially convened for the purpose; and
(v) debenture stock issued under the authority of this Act shall not affect any priority as to the payment of interest or capital enjoyed by any debenture stock existing at the date of that issue except with the sanction of three-fourths of the votes of the holders of such stock.

(2) For the purposes of this Act—
The expressions "stock" and "stockholder" include shares and shareholder;
The expression "special Act" includes Provisional Orders and Orders having the force of an Act of Parliament.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "gas or water undertaking," and to insert instead thereof the words, "undertakings to which this Act applies."
The undertakings to which the Act applies are "undertakings for the supply of gas, water, hydraulic power and electricity and tramway undertakings, including light railways constructed wholly or mainly on public roads." As introduced,
the Bill related only to gas and water companies, but a certain number of electricity, tramway and hydraulic power companies pointed out that they were subject to the same disabilities that we were seeking to remove from gas and water companies, and they asked therefore to be included in the Bill. They, of course, the Electricity and Tramways Companies come under the purview of the Ministry of Transport, but the Minister of Transport agreed that they should be included in the Bill. When we were in Committee upstairs, although the Committee were in favour of their inclusion, it was thought it might possibly imperil the Bill by adding them without first ascertaining whether or not they would be considered to be outside the scope of this particular measure. The Committee, therefore, authorised me to ascertain from Mr. Speaker whether these undertakings did come within the scope of the Bill, and if the reply were in the affirmative it was arranged that I should move the consequential alterations on the Report stage. I have moved the first of these, and the subsequent and consequential Amendments will provide that, instead of the Board of Trade, the appropriate Government Department should be inserted, so that the gas and water and hydraulic power undertakings should be referred to the Board of Trade, and the electricity and tramway undertakings to the Ministry of Transport.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1), leave out the words "Board of Trade" ["with the consent of the Board of Trade "], and insert instead thereof the words "appropriate Government Department." Leave out the word "Board" ["such terms and conditions as appear to the Board"], and insert instead thereof the word "Department." [Mr. Bridge man.]

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) (a), to leave out the word "sale" ["offer for sale to the public"], and to insert instead thereof the words "subscription by."
This is not a consequential Amendment, but one which, in Committee, I undertook to raise in suitable words at this stage, after consultation with our legal advisers. The intention is to make it quite clear that, if we do away with the necessity of
issuing the stock by auction or tender, we provide that the company shall not be allowed to make an arrangement with their friends behind the backs of the public for taking up shares at an advantageous price. Paragraph (a) of this Sub-section, amended as proposed, would read as follows—
offer for subscription by the public any such stock and at a fixed price lower than the nominal amount of the stock; and all allotments in respect of such stock shall be made as nearly as possible pro rata.
That suggestion was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and it was generally agreed to in Committee, but we could not then find exactly appropriate words.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) (a), after "a" ["and at a price lower than the nominal amount of the stock"], insert the word "fixed." After the word "stock," ["amount of the stock"], insert the words, "and all allotments in respect of such stock shall be made as nearly as possible pro rata."— [Mr. Bridgeman.]

Sir HENRY COWAN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1) (a), to insert the words
Provided that the appropriate Government Department may dispense with such of the conditions imposed by this sub-section in the case of any gas undertaking in which it is proved to their satisfaction that the issuing of capital required for such undertaking in strict conformity with the conditions imposed by this sub-section would prejudice the raising of such capital or the obtaining of the best possible price therefor.

This Amendment is rendered necessary by the adoption by the House of the three Amendments just moved by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. The position of the small gas companies under this Act, with the Amendments which have just been carried, would be a very peculiar one. In their case these Amendments would largely nullify the benefits which the Act is intended to confer. These small companies have no free market for their shares. In the past they have been able to finance themselves, and to raise small amounts of additional capital from time to time, by appealing to a restricted local public, and particularly to local tradesmen. Those local people have now no funds available for investment in such
stocks. The conditions under which Business is carried on nowadays are such that, broadly speaking, every trader requires double the capital that he formerly employed for use in his own business. The result is that these small companies will be unable to raise money from the local sources which have hitherto been open to them. The general investor outside the locality knows little or nothing of the concern, and any prospectus that could be issued would present the prospects and position of the undertaking in what would appear to him, as an uninformed outsider, to be a very unattractive form; and the issues of these small companies could not for a moment compete with the very attractive propositions which are constantly being put forward from other quarters. The only quarters from which these small companies can hope to finance themselves in the immediate future are what may be called private quarters, that is to say, insurance companies, trust companies and investment corporations, and, sometimes, private, trustees who are in possession of funds for investment. Investors of that class, however, are not prepared to take up a small portion of a small issue, on the footing that they apply and obtain a pro rata allotment. Small companies applying to such people as these, in order to place their capital, are invariably told, "Yes, we are satisfied that it is a good thing, and, at a price, we are prepared to take it; but we want to take the whole issue, or at any rate a block." The whole issue may be only £10,000 or £15,000, and these institutions will not look at it on the footing that they are to be put into competition with other investors, and to obtain only a pro rata allotment. Underwriting is suggested as a way out of this difficulty, but I am advised, I think on competent authority, that underwriting is probably illegal in the case of a statutory company, and in any case it would be ineffective, because institutions of the kind I have mentioned would not be prepared to underwrite on the footing that they were to take up what was left over; they want a firm offer of as much of the issue as may be required.

The public interest is clearly to facilitate the raising of capital by these companies. The hon Gentleman (Mr. Bridgeman), in Committee, said that the whole object of the Bill is to enable the
companies more fully to do their duty by the public. This is not a Bill for the relief of gas companies, although, incidentally, one hopes they may benefit by it, for no other industry has been so hardly hit by the War and the conditions arising from the War No business, however, can be carried on to-day on a pre-War capitalisation, and these companies, and especially the smaller ones, if they are to continue to do their duty by the public, and give to their consumers the service to which they are entitled, must have more capital. They cannot get it unless greater facilities are given them than they would have under the Bill as now amended. During the War they have made no excess profits, their dividends in most cases have almost vanished, and they have no record upon which to appeal to the general public. They have large arrears of repairs, reconstruction and extensions which must be undertaken in the public interest. A dispensing power ought to be given to the Board of Trade, which can be trusted to exercise it in the interest of the public for the limited period during which this measure will be in force. I ask this because, unless the Board of Trade is given power, at any rate, to say that they need not conform to every detail of the method prescribed, in those cases in which the claim can be established to the satisfaction of the Board, these small companies will obtain no relief from this Act, and I am quite sure that that is not the intention of this House nor of the Government. If the hon. Gentleman sees any difficulty in adopting it and making it applicable to all companies, I would ask him to consider whether he cannot, at any rate, accept it provided its application is limited to the case of smaller companies raising not more than £20,000. I am strongly of opinion that the Amendment is reasonable and that the House would be well advised in accepting it. At the same time I have in view the case not of large gas companies, but of the smaller companies, and if the hon. Gentleman will accept it subject to the limitation I have suggested I shall feel that, although he might perhaps have taken a wider and a broader view, at any rate, he will have done something to meet the very real and serious difficulty which the Bill will present unless this provision is inserted.

Captain BOWYER: I beg to second the Amendment. It is in general harmony with the Bill and it especially affects the smaller companies which, without this provision, would find it a dead letter.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Cowan) is quite right in saying the object of the Bill is to enable these public companies to carry out their duty to the public, and I feel a great deal of sympathy with the case he has put forward, because it is clear that the small companies, at any rate, will have very great difficulty in raising fresh capital as the Bill stands. The Amendment seeks, first of all, to allow the smaller companies to get their new capital underwritten, and, secondly, if they do not do that, to get trusts or finance companies or insurance companies to take the whole block of the new shares or debentures. To accept the Amendment in the words in which it appears on the Paper would really enable every company, small or great, with the consent of the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Transport, to avoid all the restrictions which are set forth in the Bill. As a rule, I do not find myself here trying to defend the Board of Trade from having more powers given to it. It is generally the other way. Every power that is given to the Board of Trade is said to be taking it away from the House of Commons and giving an unbusinesslike Government Department a great deal too much freedom in interfering with and directing business. Therefore I am very glad to see that the hon. Gentleman, at any rate, has sufficient confidence in the judgment of the Board of Trade to wish to give us these very ample powers. At the same time, I do not think the House would like the Board of Trade to be able to allow any company whatever, small or great, affected by this Bill to raise their stock or shares in a way totally contrary to the Clauses of this Bill. He suggested that if I could meet him in the way of allowing smaller companies a little more latitude he would be grateful for that, and I am going to propose that they might perhaps allow the Board of Trade this amount of discretion in regard to small companies where the amount they want to raise does not exceed £20,000. The words I suggest are these:
Provided that if in any case where the amount of money to be raised does not exceed
£20,000 it is proved to the satisfaction of the appropriate Department that the observance of any of the limitations so imposed on the offering for subscription or allotment of stock would prejudice the success of the issue or the realisation of the best price obtainable, the Department may dispense with such limitations.
That would give the Board power in the case of the smaller companies anxious to raise only a small amount, and if the hon. Gentleman would be content with that I should not oppose him.

Sir H. COWAN: It is very rarely that anyone can get all he wants in this world, and I do not pretend that this is all I want. At the same time I think the hon Gentleman has certainly endeavoured to meet me and to deal with a real hardship, and in the circumstances I will respond to his appeal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In Sub section (1) (a), after the words last inserted, add the words "Provided that if in any case where the amount of money to be raised does not exceed £20,000, it is proved to the satisfaction of the appropriate Department that the observance of any of the limitations so imposed on the offering for subscription or allotment of stock would prejudice the success of the issue or the realisation of the best price obtainable, the Department may dispense with such limitations." —[Mr. Bridgeman.]

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) paragraph (i), to leave out the word 'or" ["or the amount authorised to be raised"] and to insert instead thereof the words, "to be issued by the Special Act or as the case may be."
This is only a drafting Amendment. It makes no difference to the sense, but I am advised that it falls into line with other Bills of this character and makes the Subsection more complete.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1), paragraph (ii), leave out the words "Board of Trade" ["no consent given by the Board of Trade"] and insert instead thereof the words, "a Department."

Leave out the words "Board of Trade" ["presented to Parliament by the Board
of Trade"] and insert instead thereof the word "Department."

At the end of Sub-section (1) insert as a new Sub-section:
(2) The undertakings to which this Act applies are undertakings for the supply of gas, water, hydraulic power, and electricity, and tramway undertakings, including light railways constructed wholly or mainly on public roads.

In Sub-section (2), at the end, add the words
The expression 'appropriate Government Department' means in relation to gas, water, and hydraulic power undertkaings the Board of Trade, and in relation to electricity and tramway undertakings the Minister of Transport."—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

SCHEDULE.

(PROVISIONS RELATING TO REDEEMABLE STOCK.)

3. Save as hereinafter provided the company shall not redeem out of revenue any preference or debenture stock so created and issued as aforesaid, but the company may, if they think fit, at any time during a period of ten years from the creation and issue of any such preference or debenture stock redeem out of revenue to an amount to be approved by the Board of Trade, any such stock created and issued for the purpose of defraying abnormal reparation expenditure due to circumstances arising out of the present War, and such redemption may be effected either by way of the re-payment by annual instalments of the said sum, or by way of a sinking fund calculated to pay off the same at the expiration of the period aforesaid.

Amendment made: Leave out the words Board of Trade ["approved by the Board of Trade"] and insert instead thereof the words "appropriate Government Department. "—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Lord E. Talbot.]

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Before the Second Reading, which I understand according to practice is a more or less formal matter, I desire on behalf of some of my hon. Friends and myself, who were
intimately associated with' the special Committee appointed by the War Office to inquire into the law and procedure of courts-martial to make it perfectly clear that if we are prohibited, as I gather we are, by the practice of this House from raising to-night many of the questions which arise from the Report of that Committee, we reserve to ourselves the fullest liberty in Committee to bring forward such Amendments as we may consider necessary to give effect not only to many of the recommendations of that Committee which are not included in the Bill, but especially to the recommendations of the Minority Report of the Committee, giving, for instance, the right of appeal against the death sentence, and matters of that kind. On that understanding alone we put no obstacle in the way of the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. C. PALMER: I should like to add my own enforcement to what my hon. Friend has said, and had it not been inconvenient to you, Sir, I would like to have had a ruling on the point as to what extent one can raise, on Second Reading, the broad questions of principle contained in the Bill. It is rather a remarkable Bill. It is a Bill which is not usually associated with the somewhat formal phrase, "Army (Annual) Bill." For the first time it includes the Air Force, and I should have thought that on submission it would be possible to raise, quite generally, the broad questions of principle and practice which are contained in the Bill. But I have consulted the Chair, and I understand that although in this very Bill courts-martial are particularly referred to, it is by the practice of Parliament impossible for a Member on Second Reading to refer to the very matters which are contained within the four corners of the Bill. From my experience of this House, which is somewhat considerable, the Army Annual Bill has been often regarded as a sort of cockpit of parties. It has been an all night affair, and has meant ham and eggs in the early morning, and there has been a great deal of contention and discussion. I should like to say, with all respect, that if we permit the Bill to go through now without any discussion we do ask that when it comes to the Committee stage it should be taken at a time which would give opportunity for full and ample discussion of the many
very grave points which are raised within its Clauses. Possibly it is within the recollection of the Chair and of the House that the new and important proposals put forward in this Bill are the result of an inquiry based on certain circumstances which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). I do ask the Government to give us an assurance that when this Bill comes into Committee the Committee stage shall be fixed not at the fag end of the night when everyone is tired and weary, but that the Government will give us full time to discuss the very grave proposals in the Bill.

Major O'NEILL: On a point of Order. Is it correct to say that it is impossible on the Second Reading of this Bill to discuss general questions connected with discipline in the Army, such as the question of courts-martial? Could you, Sir, give your ruling on that point?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): It has not been the practice upon the Second Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill to have general discussions. No question on the general purposes of the Army can be debated. No question as regards the policy and administration of the Army or with regard to courts-martial can be raised. All these matters should be discussed, and always have to be discussed, in Committee and not on Second Reading. That is quite clear.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I was quite unaware of the arrangement made by the hon. Member for South Hackney and other hon. Members in regard to the discussion of this Bill, but after the ruling you, Sir, have given I will endeavour to keep entirely within the matters dealt with in this Bill, namely, the constitution of the Army and the raising and keeping of a standing Army. I think I shall be in order in discussing a very urgent matter which I want to bring before the notice of the representatives of the Government, relating entirely to the constitution laid down in this Bill. I regret that the War Office have only seen fit to send a Parliamentary Secretary here.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not concerned with the presence of Ministers from the point of view of the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member. No Minister here to-day could deal with the policy or administration of the Army,
either to defend it or otherwise. That would be out of order at this stage.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I will content myself with simply calling the attention of the Ministers responsible to a very urgent and very serious matter arising out of the constitution of the Army as laid down in the Army and Air Force Bill now before the House. It has been brought to my notice that a circular has been sent round to officers.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That has to do with the administration of the Army. These matters have to be discussed in Committee. It is not the practice or custom of this House to have a discussion of these matters on the second reading of the Army (Annual) Bill.

Lieut. - Colonel MALONE: With the greatest respect, this Bill very clearly and very explicitly deals with the raising and keeping of a standing army within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, quite apart from administration. I want to deal with a matter relating to the raising and keeping of a standing army within the United Kingdom, and I take it that I am in order in raising a matter on that subject. I want to deal with a circular which has been sent round to officers calling upon them to form an unofficial army.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is administration. That is the action of an official or officer in the Army carrying out the general administration of the War Office, and it would not be in order to discuss it now. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the time for discussing these matters is in Committee.

Major O'NEILL: What kind of questions can be discussed on the Second Reading of this Bill?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid very few questions. It might be in order to discuss the question whether the Army should be put under civilian control, but in many respects the rule which applies to other Bills does not apply to the Army (Annual) Bill.

Mr. PALMER: Would it be open to us to argue that unless we have an appeal from death sentences by courts-martial we could not have an army at all?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, that would be bringing in the proceedings of courts-martial.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is there anything in the Standing Orders which prevents Members of the House discussing this Army (Annual) Bill, or is it simply in accordance with practice? It does appear to me that if there is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent us discussing the matter we are perfectly justified in discussing it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is in accordance with the practice and custom of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: You said, Sir, that possibly the question of whether the Army should be under some institution other than the War Office might be in order. That is exactly the question which I am raising. It is a question of a circular which has been sent round to officers.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already ruled that that is out of order.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have always undertsood from an early age that this Bill had to be introduced every year because otherwise the keeping of a Standing Army would be illegal, and that it has to be passed because in times gone by the people of this country objected to the King keeping a Standing Army, because it might be used to oppress their liberties. Therefore, it is one of the very much cherished rights of this House to be allowed, if it desires, to object to a Standing Army being maintained. That is the particular object of this Bill, apart from the Committee stage which allows certain administrative questions' to be raised. My principal objection to this Bill from that point of view is, that we are asked in one Bill to enable the Crown not only to keep a Standing Army, but also to keep an Air Force enrolled and embodied. It will be observed that the Royal Marine Force is dealt with by the Navy, and it is again included, I think by an error, in the first page of this Bill. The Royal Marine Force quite recently has been placed under the Act. It was before under the Army. It used to be a great complaint of the members of that very gallant corps, that they were under both the Army and the Navy, that they got the disadvantages of the Army in questions of pay and pensions, or where the naval position as regards pay and pension was worse, they were under the Act. One of their great complaints was
that they were neither under one authority nor the other. That has now been altered. The Marines are definitely under the Act, yet I find that in this Bill, I think through a mistake in drafting, the Royal Marine Force is included in the Army as part of the force of the Crown, of which we have to approve as His Majesty's faithful Commons.
I would not object to that. That is a comparatively small matter which can be remedied next year, but I do object most strongly to the Air Force being included under this Bill. It is conceivable that the people of England might object to keeping a standing army, but might be prepared to keep a standing air force. But we are precluded from discussing the two separately through their both being included in this Bill. Therefore, if we defeat this Bill on its Second Reading, we defeat a standing army and also a standing air force. At the present time it is difficult to imagine that argument being used, but in a few years time it might be a very pertinent argument indeed There are many who hold that the only armed force that should be kept in the country are an air police force, and they object to the use of the Army for keeping order. In those circumstances they would be precluded from discussing these matters and voting separately on them by the way this Bill is drawn. As I have not had an opportunity of looking up the matter I am not sure whether this is a precedent or not. If this is the first time in which the Air Force has been included in the Army (Annual) Bill then there should be a protest from hon. Members. These precedents have to be tackled at their inception. I hope that the hon. Baronet will tell us whether this is going to be a precedent in future and what is the reason for including the Air Force in the Army Annual Bill. That is a point of some substance.
My second point is this. I propose now to revive very briefly the ancient argument used against the standing army. I object at the present moment, with the present Government, to having a standing army in this country. I am not sure of the use which they will make of it. Such standing army as there is I consider should be under purely civilian control. It should be impossible for the Executive and the War Office to control
the use and movements of that army inside the United Kingdom. It is, I am afraid, by no means under civilian control at the present moment. The War has resulted in the power of the Staff becoming more analogous to the power of military Staffs on the Continent in the great conscript countries. The War Office Staff has very much more power than it was ever permitted by this House to have before the War. It has ever been one of the very ancient bulwarks of our liberty that the Army should be under purely civilian control. It is to make that true in spirit as well as letter that I and my friends propose to divide against this Bill, not that we shall succeed in the Lobby, but in order to reassert the control of the people through their elected representatives over the control and use of the armed Forces.
9.0 P.M.
This is no imaginary bogey that I am raising. We have only to look across the North Sea to what is going on to-day in Germany. There you have a standing army completely out of hand, dominating the Government. The German people and their representatives are simply helpless creatures in the hands of the professional military class, who have control of the machine. Unless we are most jealous of the privileges of this House and of the safeguards handed down to us by our great Whig forbears, we may find ourselves beginning again a long uphill fight such as those statesmen had in the past in insisting on the control by the civilian representatives of the people of the professional armed forces. It is for those reasons that I oppose this Bill, not that I consider that, with things as they are, with international relations in their present state, we can at once disband the Army. The outcome of the War and the policy that has been pursued make it necessary for us to keep a standing army, but the old objection to it still remains. The very fact that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, quoted the long practice of this House, of which you have great experience, of the passing without discussion of this Bill, impels me to make this protest. We object, we always have objected in this country, to anything in the nature of what is now called militarism. In past days it was known by a different term. It was then the King's standing army. In recent times the standing army of this country has not been used to suppress
our liberties; it has, on the whole, been used in this country fairly, and generally in the cause of liberty. An hon. Friend beside me mentioned trade disputes.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has passed on to the purpose of the Army. To deal with that would be out of order.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was led astray by my hon. Friend's reference to trade disputes. There is this modern spirit to-day of opposition to a long service, standing, professional army being used to browbeat and coerce the civil Government.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not deal with the general purpose of the Army.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I again admit I am out of Order. We still consider that a standing army should be kept in this country only on sufferance, as a temporary expedient. We insist that we have the right to negative the power of the Crown to keep soldiers in existence, to billet them—

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: You will want an army soon.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think I admitted a few sentences back that, in fact, as things were and international relations being what they were, a standing army was necessary. I am very proud of our Army, with which I have had the honour of serving on active service; but that is not the point. During the War we have lost control of our Army. The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) I am sure will support the view that the Army is entirely the servant of the Government. It must, under no circumstances, becomes a vested interest, and under no circumstances must it be allowed to dominate policy. It is entirely the tool of the elected representatives. Anything that unduly strengthens the executive power as against the power of civilian control should be resisted most strenuously. It is because we have weakened the civilian control over the Army, because there is a danger of the executive power becoming a menace to the old and long-cherished liberties of the people, and as this Bill is looked upon as a matter of form, ancient and important as its origin is, that we, also as a matter of form, propose to divide against it.

Lieut-Colonel MALONE: I have particulars of the raising of a special strike-breaking army which is not contained in this Bill and which is in contravention of the Army constitution. Am I in Order in discussing that here and bringing it before the notice of the House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Not at this stage. The hon. Member has exhausted his right.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

IRELAND.

MOUNTJOY PRISON.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir E. Sanders.]

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland if he has any information with regard to the prisoners in Mountjoy Gaol. During the first part of the sitting of the House, I received a telegram from Ireland, and, in view of the seriousness of the situation, I feel that it is up to me to question the Government as to the truth of the statements contained in it. Is it a fact that some 100 political prisoners in Mountjoy Gaol are on hunger strike, and, of these men, mostly young men, are the majority men who have not been tried or even charged before a magistrate? Are they men who have simply been arrested on suspicion of having committed or being about to commit some crime, and who have not been put on trial either before a court of their peers or before a court-martial? Is it a fact that there is great anxiety in Dublin in particular, and in Ireland in general, that certain of these young men may die within the next few hours? Is it true that a general strike, with all the complications and hardships and developments that may arise, has been threatened to bring about the release of these men, and is it the policy of the Government to permit purely political prisoners, who have not been placed on trial, in their present state of exaltation to starve themselves to death and so commit suicide? If that be the
Government policy, it ought to be plainly stated in the House so that we can discuss it, but, until I have heard the Government reply, I do not intend to express the perfectly obvious opinion of such extraordinary criminal folly.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Henry): Since the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) put a question to me, and which at the moment I was unable to answer, I have communicated with Dublin, and I will read the telegram that I have received in reply:
Mountjoy Prison under strike. The Prisons Board report that the condition of all the prisoners on hunger strike in Mountjoy Prison this morning was weak and some were nearing the danger zone. The number on hunger strike at present is 89. The total of the so-called political prisoners at present in Mountjoy Prison, including those excluded from the ameliorative treatment, is 151. The number of those under sentence is 70, and the number under detention, including those for trial, is 81.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean by "waiting for trial" that the men have been arrested on suspicion and have been committed for trial?

Mr. HENRY: They include both those waiting for trial and those arrested on suspicion.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the number arrested on suspicion?

Mr. HENRY: I regret that I cannot do that. The number under sentence is 70, and the total number is 151. The 81 include those arrested on suspicion and those for trial. I cannot divide the number further than that.
The classes of prisoners on hunger strike are:

(1) Convicted prisoners who are excluded from ameliorative treatment, and
(2) Untried prisoners.

The former include several prisoners who were committed by juries at assizes, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment varying from 9 to 18 calendar months, with hard labour.
The result of the figures, so far as I can give them, is that there are 89 out of 151 on hunger strike, the 89 including a
number of convicted prisoners, and the convicted prisoners including men convicted in the ordinary way before a jury just as they would be in this country without any recourse to the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Before a jury?

Mr. HENRY: Yes, that is my information.
The former (the convicted prisoners) include several prisoners who were convicted by juries at assizes.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Several, but not the number that you referred to.

Mr. HENRY: I said that there were a number: I did not at all convey that the whole of them were convicted by juries at assizes. They are made up of men convicted probably by court-martial, but also of some convicted by juries at assizes, and those are exactly in the same position as the others. I may mention that the Chairman of the Visiting Justices, Mr. Clark, has resigned, and also that the Lord Mayor of Dublin—I am trusting to the Press in this respect—sent a telegram to His Excellency yesterday and that the reply sent was as follows:—
There is no power under the Rules made in November last to extend ameliorative treatment to convicted prisoners, who are excluded from ameliorative treatment. Untried prisoners are treated under the Rules for untried prisoners. His Excellency does not propose to modify the rules in the direction you suggest. All prisoners on hunger strike have been forewarned as to the consequences of persistence in their conduct, in accordance with the decision of His Majesty's Government.
The House will recollect that immediately before the Adjournment—I think it was on Friday—the Leader of the House made a statement in reference to the condition of a prisoner in Wormwood Scrubbs. I may also mention that I was informed that a similar hunger strike was progressing in Wormwood Scrubbs, but I am glad to say that it has been abandoned.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I think that of all the explanations offered from the Government Bench that which we have just heard is about the weakest. The right hon. and learned Gentleman conveyed to us—I accept his statement at once that he did not intend to do so—that a large proportion of these prisoners were convicted by jury. The truth of the matter is that there are only two or three of them who
have been convicted by jury. The rest have been either convicted by court-martial, having been denied civil trial under a pretence that the war is still proceeding, or have not been convicted and are men against whom no definite charge whatever has been made. They are men concerning whom the last Chief Secretary declared that the Government did not intend to make any charge or to put them upon their trial. These are the men whom the Irish Government are willing should die in prison. All I wish to say, and I speak with a sense of responsibility and in no light-hearted manner, is that if one of these men dies while interned in an English prison you will lay up for yourselves trouble of which no man can see the end. The death of one of these men will have its effect, not for to-day alone, but for generations yet unborn. Really the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hopkinson) might keep his sniggering for some other occasion. This is not a matter for laughter. It is one of the most serious positions that any Government has ever had to face, and if the hon. Gentleman knew a little more about the subject he would understand it. I can imagine nothing more calculated to embitter the position or to worsen matters, which are bad enough already, than the ill-considered sneers and laughter of hon. Members about a subject about which they know nothing. English public opinion as well as Irish public opinion, will feel outraged by what is happening in Mountjoy Prison to-day, because Englishmen pride themselves upon one thing, and that is liberty of the subject. They believe that every-man who is imprisoned has the right to be told what is the charge levelled against him and that he is entitled to be put on trial on that charge. The hon. Member to whom I have already referred makes some remark. I would invite him to become more coherent and articulate and to deliver a speech, if he knows anything about the subject—which I know he does not.
English opinion will not tolerate this system of the Irish Government, and it is perfectly useless for the Attorney-General to shelter himself behind the Cabinet. This is being committed by the Irish Government and by the Irish Government alone. English opinion will not tolerate a system under which men,
against whom no charge has been made, are being kept in prison until they die from the results of the hunger strike. There are more facts about Mountjoy than we were told by the Attorney-General. He did not tell us that the Visiting Surgeon of that prison has resigned as a protest against the conduct of the Government, and neither did he tell us that all the doctors concerned, the whole medical staff of the prison, have called upon the Government to release these men and not to hold them there until they die. The Irish Government are prepared to send telegrams to all the relatives of these men telling them that their friends are in a most dangerous condition, as they are almost at death's door, and inviting them up to see their friends before they die. Hon. Members may not know what the effects of that will be on Irish public opinion, but if they had read anything of Irish history they would know that the men who will be done to death in prisons to-day will be the heroes and martyrs of to-morrow, and the Government which plunges lightly into conduct of this kind is only laying up for itself a store of trouble in the years to come. I should like to know why a different policy is adopted by the Government in England from that adopted by the Government in Ireland. When these political prisoners reach a dangerous condition in England they are immediately released. The Lord Mayor of Dublin was released a few days ago. Mr. William O'Brien, the secretary of the Irish Trades Union Congress, who was arrested without charge and imprisoned without trial, was released by the Home Office. Why has the Irish Government persisted in a course which humanity forbids the Home Office from pursuing in this country?
The Attorney-General quoted a telegram sent to the Lord Mayor of Dublin by the Lord Lieutenant. He did not tell the House that the Irish Government has given orders that the Lord Mayor of Dublin, although Chief Magistrate of the Irish Metropolis, is not to be permitted to enter the prison to see how the men are getting on. That is a condition of affairs which would be absolutely impossible in any city in England. I defy any English Member to say that he could conceive of a state of affairs in which the Chief Magistrate of a city in this country
would be refused permission to enter a prison to see whether men were really in danger of death as a result of their prison treatment.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Chief Magistrate has taken the oath of a Justice of the Peace?

Mr. MacVEAGH: I have no knowledge whether he has or not.

Sir W. DAVISON: I understand he has not, and that that is why he is not admitted.

Mr. MacVEAGH: What has that got to do with the situation? He is the Lord Mayor of the Irish capital, and he has always been allowed to enter the prison. He has never been prevented until the Irish Executive, with the object of cloaking up this whole transaction, issued an order that he is no longer to be admitted. If he has not taken the oath, there are lots of men who have declined to take the office of Justice of the Peace, just as there are lots of men who have declined the O.B.E. If he were a Justice of the Peace at all, it would only be in an ex-officio capacity, and not permanently, but as Lord Mayor. It is as Lord Mayor that he has always been allowed to enter the prison and not as a Justice. I can assure my hon. Friend, who I know does not approach this question with any bitterness, and knows something about the subject to which he refers, that the Lord Mayor has never been admitted as a magistrate, but as Lord Mayor. He has been admitted to Mountjoy prison for three years, and why is he stopped now?

Sir W. DAVISON: The Lord Mayor as such is an ex-officio magistrate and per forms judicial functions as a magistrate, and as such ought to take the oath of a Justice.

Mr. MacVEAGH: The hon. Member has not answered my question, which was, why was the Lord Mayor allowed to enter the prison day after day and week after week for the last three years, and why is it that it is only now he has been stopped?

Sir W. DAVISON: He ought not to have been admitted.

Mr. MacVEAGH: That is one of those puzzles of Irish Government which no
intelligent man can understand and I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has difficulty in doing so. That is not the only instance we have. One of the prisoners from Ireland in Wormwood Scrubbs received a telegram announcing that one of his children was in a very serious and dangerous condition. He applied to be released on parole, which is a privilege which has always been granted to untried prisoners arrested under the Defence of the Kealm Act in the case of illness in the family. There has been no case in which it has been refused, and it was certainly never refused in the case of any prisoner in England. The Home Office has always acted quite fairly in that respect. They allow these men to go home on parole to the sick members of their family and, to their honour be it told, every man obeyed the parole and returned on the date named. In the case of this man in Wormwood Scrubs, his relatives wired to the Governor of Wormwood Scrubs prison asking whether this man was to be released in order to go home to see his dying child. The reply that the Governor sent was, "he is not being released on parole as the Irish Government objects, mark you—not the Home Office, but the Irish Government. They would not allow him out, and the man's child died, and he is still kept in Wormwood Scrubs. I advise hon. Members who are inclined to defend this state of affairs to be very careful and to remember that there is an English public opinion, even if they disregard Irish public opinion, and that acts of barbarism and brutality such as that will meet with a speedy vengeance when the English electorate gets the opportunity.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: When we were discussing the Army Annual Bill I wished to draw attention to a very urgent matter in connection with the War Office. I desire to do so now because the Attorney-General gave us an indication of a general strike in Ireland next week. I have here a communication which has been sent officially to members of the Ex-Officers' National Union. It is headed:
Ex-Officers' National Union,
and begins:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for offering to assist should any national emergency occur. Preparations
are being made in case the food supply is suddenly cut off. I shall be glad if you will fill in and return the enclosed form so that you may be allotted a position. A telegram will be made out so that in the event of any emergency you can be called immediately. Any alteration of address should be sent to me as soon as possible.—Yours faithfully, Gr. H. Home, Major. Please notify any change of address to Major G. H. Home.
Then follow particulars of addresses and telephone numbers, and a few questions, such as "Are you able to drive a railway engine?", "Have you had any railway experience?" "Are you able to take charge of a power station?" "Are you able to drive a motor car or bicycle?" "Have you had any clerical experience?" "Did you assist in the last strike? If so, please say how." I gave notice of this question to the War Office, but I was informed that the Secretary of State for War was in France in connection with the industrial trouble in the Ruhr Valley and other matters, but I take this opportunity of raising the question, because the right hon. Gentleman can then read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and then perhaps explain it. I hope the House will realise
that this circular means that an attempt is being made, possibly under the guise of unofficialdom, to raise a force of White Guards, such as has been raised in the European countries in which there has been civil war. That means civil war. In Ireland, the first body to organise were the reactionaries. The Ulster Volunteers were organised a long time before there was any desire to raise the National Volunteers, and that led to the organisation of the National Volunteers. In the same way, the organisation of White Guards in England will only provoke the workers to organise and drill a Bed Army. I hope the House will realise how serious it is that an organisation of this sort should be tolerated and permitted by the War Office. When we get an opportunity of discussing the Army in the future, I hope the Secretary for War will be in a position to describe it, and to explain why it is allowed to be proceeded with.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Six Minutes before Ten o'Clock.